[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 22:48:21 +1000
Cc: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050519122319.GH15391@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <428B6B72.5010407@xxxxxx> <E1DYWM2-0004jM-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050519122319.GH15391@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:23:19PM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> I agree, however defining a value of 600 system wide is horrible for
> all hosts that behave "correctly". So what we could do is take probes
> of the id distribution and define the threshold on a per peer scope.
> Example: Once in a while we start a probe and set a bit in a bitmap
> for every id that matches a defined window. Not sure about the size of
> that bitmap yet but 2048 bits might be a good start. The first fragment

Sorry, but this scheme is way too complex for a problem that only affects
a tiny section of the community.  If you really want to do this then
do it as a static route flag instead of something that the system tries
to auto-detect.

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

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