From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nivedita Singhvi Subject: Re: Re: network-bridge script reworked Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:36:39 -0700 Message-ID: <4357D5A7.3030307@us.ibm.com> References: <20051019093502.GP8705@tpkurt.tagung.uni-hamburg.de> <43562AC6.3030006@spamcop.net> <20051019115840.GD26910@leeni.uk.xensource.com> <20051019122201.GF11567@tpkurt.pmc.nue.novell.com> <4357CC24.8090409@blueyonder.co.uk> <20051020171004.GA27378@leeni.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20051020171004.GA27378@leeni.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ewan Mellor Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ewan Mellor wrote: >>>antispoof=${antispoof:-no} >> >>Just a reminder to fix this inconsistency. The default should probably be >>yes (unless there is some reason why antispoof doesn't work?) Er, antispoofing was causing quite a significant degradation in performance (long ago), and there are quite a few people who were thus interested in keeping it off. Since performance work for Xen 3.0 has pretty much been on the backburner no idea of the current situation and the value of having it off/on. thanks, Nivedita