From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Route cache performance under stress
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 18:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Message-ID: <20030519.182410.10302536.davem@redhat.com>
References: <20030520011053.GB10419@netnation.com>
	<20030519.181405.35017608.davem@redhat.com>
	<20030519212209.P39592@shell.cyberus.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: sim@netnation.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: hadi@shell.cyberus.ca
In-Reply-To: <20030519212209.P39592@shell.cyberus.ca>
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

   From: Jamal Hadi <hadi@shell.cyberus.ca>
   Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 21:23:08 -0400 (EDT)
   
   Also used to attack CISCOs by them kiddies btw. We stand much better
   than any CISCO doing caching.

I have to assume that the source address selection operates
differently for attacking cisco equiptment, our hashes being
identical would really be unbelievable :-)