From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20050517.175210.41633462.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20050517232556.GA26846@gondor.apana.org.au> <20050518000955.GA27212@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ak@muc.de, dlstevens@us.ibm.com, rick.jones2@hp.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au In-Reply-To: <20050518000955.GA27212@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:09:55 +1000 > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:04:14AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Herbert Xu writes: > > It will, you just need enough other hosts to thrash inetpeer. How many > > you need depends on your available memory. > > Even when the cache entry is deleted, Linux will allocate an ID randomly > so the chance of what was stated above occuring is very small. Yes, that's right. Andi just doesn't like inetpeer, so let's just move along and accept that. :-)