| To: | David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly |
| From: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 19 May 2005 01:31:13 +0200 |
| Cc: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx, rick.jones2@xxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <OFD80D42F2.31DFC921-ON88257005.007ABBCD-88257005.007B23EA@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <E1DYWNS-0004ju-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <OFD80D42F2.31DFC921-ON88257005.007ABBCD-88257005.007B23EA@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
* David Stevens <OFD80D42F2.31DFC921-ON88257005.007ABBCD-88257005.007B23EA@xxxxxxxxxx> 2005-05-18 15:24 > If you're going to add an IP option, you can eliminate the > problem entirely. Just add an "extended IP ID" IP option and give > it as many bits as you want-- make that the high order of an n+16-bit > IP ID. I was thinking of something more nasty such as using as value for this flag (IP_DF|IP_MF) ;-> |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Nivedita Singhvi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] Ethernet Bridging: Enable Hardware Checksumming, Jon Mason |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Nivedita Singhvi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |