From: Arthur Kepner <akepner@sgi.com>
To: "David S.Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:28:05 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505171104030.29021@linux.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050517.104947.112621738.davem@davemloft.net>
On Tue, 17 May 2005, David S.Miller wrote:
> ....
> IP is supposed to be resilient to side effects of network
> topology, and one such common side effect is packet reordering.
> It's common, it's fine, and the networking stack deals with it
> gracefully. Strict reassembly does not.
>
IP was designed a looong time ago. I think it's reasonable to
make (or at least allow for) some accomodation when networking
bandwidths have gone up by several orders of magnitude. (And
while we wait for IPv6 to catch on ;-)
>
> Sure it's off by default, but isn't it a better idea
> to use NFS over TCP instead?
>
This isn't limited to NFS, of course, though that's the
application of most concern. I know that we have customers
who, for good or bad reasons, _do_ use NFS over UDP.
> Decreasing ipfrag_time is also not an option, because then
> you break fragmentation for packet radio folks :-)
Different sysctls for different folks....
--
Arthur
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-17 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-17 16:18 [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly Arthur Kepner
2005-05-17 17:49 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-17 18:28 ` Arthur Kepner [this message]
2005-05-17 18:48 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-17 20:21 ` Arthur Kepner
2005-05-17 18:38 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-17 18:45 ` Pekka Savola
2005-05-17 18:50 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-17 18:56 ` Rick Jones
2005-05-17 18:57 ` John Heffner
2005-05-17 19:09 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-17 19:21 ` Rick Jones
2005-05-17 19:26 ` Ben Greear
2005-05-17 20:48 ` Thomas Graf
2005-05-17 19:17 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-17 19:56 ` David Stevens
2005-05-17 20:17 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-17 20:22 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-17 20:27 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-17 21:02 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-17 21:13 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-17 21:24 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-17 21:25 ` Rick Jones
2005-05-17 22:06 ` Arthur Kepner
2005-05-17 22:18 ` Rick Jones
2005-05-17 22:40 ` David Stevens
2005-05-17 23:11 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-17 23:20 ` Arthur Kepner
2005-05-17 23:25 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-17 23:55 ` David Stevens
2005-05-18 0:00 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-18 0:04 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-18 0:09 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-18 0:52 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-18 0:06 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2005-05-18 0:10 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-18 0:51 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-18 1:05 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-18 1:13 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-18 1:09 ` John Heffner
2005-05-17 23:53 ` Rick Jones
2005-05-17 22:12 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-17 22:23 ` Rick Jones
2005-05-17 20:29 ` John Heffner
2005-05-17 19:01 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2005-05-17 19:13 ` Rick Jones
2005-05-17 19:25 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2005-05-17 19:31 ` John Heffner
2005-05-17 19:52 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2005-05-17 20:05 ` John Heffner
2005-05-17 20:12 ` Rick Jones
2005-05-17 19:33 ` Rick Jones
2005-05-17 19:53 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-17 22:11 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-17 22:13 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-17 23:08 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-17 23:16 ` David S. Miller
2005-05-17 23:28 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-17 23:36 ` Patrick McHardy
2005-05-17 23:41 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-18 0:47 ` Thomas Graf
2005-05-18 1:06 ` Arthur Kepner
2005-05-18 1:16 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-18 1:37 ` Thomas Graf
2005-05-18 1:52 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-18 11:30 ` Thomas Graf
2005-05-18 11:40 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-18 12:24 ` Thomas Graf
2005-05-18 16:21 ` Rick Jones
2005-05-18 17:40 ` Thomas Graf
2005-05-18 17:44 ` Thomas Graf
2005-05-18 21:46 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-18 22:24 ` David Stevens
2005-05-18 22:39 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2005-05-18 23:31 ` Thomas Graf
2005-05-18 21:45 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-19 12:23 ` Thomas Graf
2005-05-19 12:48 ` Herbert Xu
2005-05-19 15:19 ` Thomas Graf
2005-05-19 17:02 ` Rick Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.61.0505171104030.29021@linux.site \
--to=akepner@sgi.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).