Re: question regarding iptables tuning (was Re: iptables denial of services)

[Friedrich Lobenstock <fl@fl.priv.at>]

Martin Josefsson wrote on 17.04.2004 22:58 MET:
> On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 22:41, Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> 
> 
>>>The new hashfunction (jenkins) doesn't need that (2.4 and 2.6 has it).
>>>It's very happy with 2^n sizes, in fact it's happy with all sizes :)
>>
>>Since which official kernel 2.4 release do we have the new hash? If it is 
>>just 2.4.24 or up then you should still need to mention this fact about the 
>>prime number. See the one guy posting about kernel 2.4.20.
> 
> I don't remember since which kernel. Tell the person who wrote that
> document to update it.

I just got this link from Pablo and I am not a netfilter developer, so 
someone with higher professiency in the netfilter area might want to do that.

> Please don't mention kernel 2.4.20, conntrack is horribly broken in
> 2.4.20 unless patched...

I am not using it but I just wanted to show you that you can not expect 
that the versions without the improved hash are not deployed anymore.

-- 
MfG / Regards
Friedrich Lobenstock