From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Subject: Re: Route cache performance under stress Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 22:13:33 -0400 (EDT) Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030519220409.V39658@shell.cyberus.ca> References: <20030520011053.GB10419@netnation.com> <20030519.181405.35017608.davem@redhat.com> <20030519212209.P39592@shell.cyberus.ca> <20030519.182410.10302536.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: sim@netnation.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20030519.182410.10302536.davem@redhat.com> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org I dont think the hashes are similar - its the effect into the slow path. I was told by someone who tested this on a priicey CISCO that they simply die unless capable of a feature called CEF. cheers, jamal On Mon, 19 May 2003, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Jamal Hadi > 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 :-) > > >