From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arthur Kepner Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20050517.132202.59028935.davem@davemloft.net> <20050517202730.GA79960@muc.de> <20050517.140245.71090021.davem@davemloft.net> <428A613F.1020303@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Rick Jones In-Reply-To: <428A613F.1020303@hp.com> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 17 May 2005, Rick Jones wrote: > .... > or an added heuristic of "if have reassembled N datagrams for the same > source/dest/protocol tuple with ID's "larger" than 'this one' since it has > arrived, we are probably going to wrap so might as well drop 'this one'" for > some judicious and magical selection of N that may be a decent predictor of > wrap on top of some existing reassembly timout. > .... How do you define "larger" in this case? A sender is free to choose any ID - they can't be assumed to be montonic, for sure. -- Arthur