a thought from a novice at this level of programming.
the TCP stack already deals with fragments (including duplicates) doesn't
this process include source/dest ip/port and a sequence number? wouldn't
this (usually) merge both packets back togeather if they get fragmented on
the way? if they are small packets this probably won't work, but you would
not be as worried about duplicating them anyway.
David Lang
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>
> >:: b. This means that I'd like to check on the Linux box, if I am about to
> >:: transmit an ACK or if I'm about to transmit a small packet (say <64 bytes).
> >:: If yes, duplicate the packet and route it to *two* routers on the
> >:: local ethernet simultaneously.
>
> >This scares me some.. it seems to make more sense to bond the channels
> >somehow and treat them as one link so that the duplicate packet can be
> >stripped on the other end instead of propogated on.. we've already got
>
> Well, since they're essentially two one-way links, treating them
> as a bonded channel is not so easy. But at some point, the two paths
> coincide again (obviously). There's a Linux box there as well, so I *could*
> coalesce duplicate packets back into one there again. It would require
> remembering packets for a certain amount of time, though (in order
> to kill the arriving duplicate).
> --
> Sincerely, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).
> Our four weapons are: fear, surprise, a ruthless efficiency, an almost
> fanatical devotion to the Pope... and nice red uniforms.
> -
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
