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

netdev

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

To:	netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:	Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2005 10:02:45 -0700
In-reply-to:	<20050519122319.GH15391@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:	<428B6B72.5010407@xxxxxx> <E1DYWM2-0004jM-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050519122319.GH15391@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304

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.

Why would 600 penalize a host behaving "correctly?" I mean, what are thechances of a datagram's being reassembled, if 600 subsent datagrams have arrivedfrom that same host?


rick

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, (continued) Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, David Stevens Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Nivedita Singhvi Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Rick Jones <=

Previous by Date:	Re: Fw: 2.6.12-rc4-mm[12] - ULOG problem, Andrew Morton
Next by Date:	Re: Fw: 2.6.12-rc4-mm[12] - ULOG problem, James Morris
Previous by Thread:	Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf
Next by Thread:	[PATCH 1/2] Resend: LSM-IPSec Networking Hooks, jaegert
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]