netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

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>