[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly

To: Arthur Kepner <akepner@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:25:56 +1000
Cc: dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx, rick.jones2@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505171612440.3335@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <E1DYBED-0006wa-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505171612440.3335@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 04:20:07PM -0700, Arthur Kepner wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2005, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > ....
> > Such systems would be violating the spirit of RFC791 which says:
> > 
> >     The identification field is used to distinguish the fragments of one
> >     datagram from those of another.  The originating protocol module of
> >     an internet datagram sets the identification field to a value that
> >     must be unique for that source-destination pair and protocol for the
> >     time the datagram will be active in the internet system.
> > 
> > Are you aware of any extant systems that do this?
> > ....
> Are you aware of any (new) systems that _don't_ violate this? I 
> wouldn't want to own one of them! 

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying.  I meant are there any
extant systems that would transmit 1 set of fragments to host A with
id x, then 65535 packets host B, and then wrap around and send a new
set of fragments to host A with idx.

Linux will never do this thanks to inetpeer.c.

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>