>> a competing philosophy that said that the IP checksum must be
>> recomputed incrementally at routers to catch hardware problems in the
...
>ah.. we do recalculate IP Checksums now.. when we update any of the
>timestamp rr options etc..
But, do you do it incrementally? By which I mean
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Benjamin C.R. LaHaise wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> > At gigapacket rates, it becomes an issue. This guy is talking about
> > tinkering with new IP _options_, not just the header. So even if the
> > IP header itself fits totally in a cache line, the
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Also, I was looking into some RFC 1812 stuff. (Thanks for nothing Dave
> > :) and was looking at 4.2.2.6 where it mentions that a router MUST
> > implement the End of Option List option.. Havent' figured out where
> > that is implememented yet.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Craig Milo Rogers wrote:
> > > I have a whole 40 bytes (+/-) to share... Now although I don't see
> > > anything explicitly prohibiting the use of unused IP Header option
..
> > > in between.. Has anyone seen any RFC that explicitly says I MUST NOT?
> >
> >Not to my knowled
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> At gigapacket rates, it becomes an issue. This guy is talking about
> tinkering with new IP _options_, not just the header. So even if the
> IP header itself fits totally in a cache line, the options afterwardsd
> likely will not and thus require an
Benjamin C.R. LaHaise writes:
> Since the ip header fits in the cache of some CPUs (like the P4),
> this becoming a cheaper operation than ever before.
At gigapacket rates, it becomes an issue. This guy is talking about
tinkering with new IP _options_, not just the header. So even if the
IP
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> Not to my knowledge. Routers already change the time to live field,
> so I see no reason why they can't do smart things with special IP
> options either (besides efficiency concerns :-).
A number of ISPs patch the MSS value to 1492 due to the ridicu
Michael Peddemors writes:
> A few things.. why is ip.h not part of the linux/include/net rather than
> linux/include/linux hierachy?
Exported to older userlands...
> Defined items that are not used anywhere in the source..
> Can any of them be deleted now?
>
So what, userland makes use
Michael Peddemors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A few things.. why is ip.h not part of the linux/include/net rather than
> linux/include/linux hierachy?
Because it needs to be user visible for raw sockets (linux is exported to the user,
net isn't)
> Defined items that are not used anywhere in
While doing some work on some ip options stuff, I have noticed a bunchof
unused entries in linux/include/linux/ip.h
A few things.. why is ip.h not part of the linux/include/net rather than
linux/include/linux hierachy?
Defined items that are not used anywhere in the source..
Can any of them be
10 matches
Mail list logo
