| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly |
| From: | John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 May 2005 21:09:00 -0400 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Arthur Kepner <akepner@xxxxxxx>, dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx, rick.jones2@xxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050517232556.GA26846@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <E1DYBED-0006wa-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505171612440.3335@xxxxxxxxxx> <20050517232556.GA26846@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On May 17, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Herbert Xu wrote: 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. Of course (as usual) NATs break everything. ;-)There are also the ugly case where fragments could be delayed in the network for a period of time, for example during a path change, and show up at exactly the wrong time. -John |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Arthur Kepner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Rick Jones |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |