From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Allen Simpson Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH v7 3/7 RFC] TCPCT part 1c: sysctl_tcp_cookie_size, socket option TCP_COOKIE_TRANSACTIONS Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:40:08 -0500 Message-ID: <4B08C0A8.6070302@gmail.com> References: <4B06A8CF.3000303@gmail.com> <20091120.092408.208010931.davem@davemloft.net> <4B081A81.5000602@gmail.com> <20091121.111844.54272535.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, joe@perches.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-yx0-f187.google.com ([209.85.210.187]:63932 "EHLO mail-yx0-f187.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754525AbZKVEkH (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:40:07 -0500 Received: by yxe17 with SMTP id 17so3939513yxe.33 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:40:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20091121.111844.54272535.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: William Allen Simpson > Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:51:13 -0500 > >> This code was based on net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c for syncookies. >> Apparently, default for syncookies has been controversial. > > I'll have to change that, it doesn't make any sense. Thanks > for pointing it out. > Once again, for the umpteenth time, I learn that existing code proves to be a bad example to follow.... >> Would you accept always default to TCP_COOKIE_MAX? > > Sure, let's see what breaks. > Unlikely to break anything, according to studies of the subject: Medina, A., Allman, M., and Floyd, S., "Measuring Interactions Between Transport Protocols and Middleboxes", Proceedings 4th ACM SIGCOMM/USENIX Conference on Internet Measurement, October 2004. http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/networking/tbit- Aug2004.pdf TCPCT part 2 is much more likely to break things....