From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 20:38:25 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20050517.104947.112621738.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, akepner@sgi.com Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20050517.104947.112621738.davem@davemloft.net> (David S. Miller's message of "Tue, 17 May 2005 10:49:47 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org "David S. Miller" writes: > From: Arthur Kepner > Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:18:26 -0700 (PDT) > >> 1) Fragments must arrive in order (or in reverse order) - >> out of order fragments are dropped. > > Even the most simplistic flow over the real internet > can get slight packet reordering. > > Heck, reordering happens on SMP on any network. > > 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. If anything it would be better as a per route flag. Then you could set it only for your local network where you know Gigabit happens and reordering might be avoidable in some cases. -Andi P.S.: Arthur I think your arguments would have more force if you published the test program that demonstrates the corruption.