From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] first conntrack ID must be 1 not 2 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:11:02 +0200 Message-ID: <442C81A6.3040501@trash.net> References: <43EFF1F0.1090701@netfilter.org> <20060213112028.GU4601@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> <43F438F5.8070607@trash.net> <43F43FA9.4000906@trash.net> <43F4426D.9060807@trash.net> <43F4DBDF.9010008@trash.net> <442B9765.2020105@ufomechanic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Harald Welte , Netfilter Development Mailinglist , Yasuyuki Kozakai , Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: To: Amin Azez In-Reply-To: <442B9765.2020105@ufomechanic.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Amin Azez wrote: > Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> (jiffies, tuples) would be unique even in that case. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thats true. But what is the advantage over using the counter? >> >> >> >> Actually it would still not be unique if connections live >> shorter than a jiffy and are resurrected. > > > In which case would there be any harm in it not being unqiue, if it were > the same connection resurrected, why try to avoid having the same id? Besides solving an implementation problem, so ID was meant as a long-term unique identifier. For the life-time of a connection the tuples are already a unique identifier. It's amazing, I've never had so many discussions about a single 32 bit field :)