From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerrit Renker Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:12:52 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/43]: Protect against Reset/Sync floods due to buggy applications Message-Id: <200704110912.52445@strip-the-willow> List-Id: References: <200704051637.18198@strip-the-willow> In-Reply-To: <200704051637.18198@strip-the-willow> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dccp@vger.kernel.org Quoting Ian McDonald: | Will have to read more about rate limiting though as I'm | not convinced normally about rate limiting schemes etc as they | invariably end up causing problems when doing things like running a | huge server with lots of connections. However as I said, haven't read | it yet so might be wrong on your intent. RFC 4340. 7.5.4 says that this rate-limiting is a SHOULD. I had similar thoughts in mind regarding the overhead that this mechanism incurs. That is why it is kept as simple as possible. Something like xrlim_allow is already too complicated (cf. comments).