From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Wed Feb 1 01:04:53 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99DC2CCB05D for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 01:04:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ermal.luci@gmail.com) Received: from mail-it0-x230.google.com (mail-it0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 616C519AC; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 01:04:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ermal.luci@gmail.com) Received: by mail-it0-x230.google.com with SMTP id c7so7325035itd.1; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:04:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=oYz+XlC/hsSfNR2QKJki9pWkwTxicP21YGEM4YLuETQ=; b=K2slrYRS7Gl8K4YsFlstDGaOUQBBDaLms/tfy+LmnJZnKPBQJKeaM8yCmMsFCWmd4o BRJ1JhjOpP+1bGOwVkMGrRewu4qTVfQhDo9tCfGVzgVSTiERAXfe+aa81+OQv/pwQx74 ftILElrCwrvj29/ZgKLY4NLjZBnzCXnMKUxjRyn3Y0PvvTQ24tYWT8NoP6LRwI9OHrit shleNevjpMqylvNJyGhAK+xgJV8ul8tJ1E/Pp8IPV3RvVPEwV3hxPJyPdmZpKH0HBmF+ nR0JqMvky00oqWW8LJumVv2zS5alIQIfYfD0TIpLEK0p8T2JO0LoJysLptEQDpu7OfiJ zQ2g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oYz+XlC/hsSfNR2QKJki9pWkwTxicP21YGEM4YLuETQ=; b=afC9UfYJblNhVNYTrTpOa6Do4jHkMnOd/s7MmdtqPbIYJQtavBpfM4E/5VT7yn6Eua HM7HocUCZAWjyPOzMf8ESgi5HkK4lHqv/paenA+orvLfQ9XyUTElAJEWrf0jUSry1BMK lHisT1uxb1boH5jptgcikLANiVdXCFELFP6I4aC+0Z1WGa8e5wLgGQmBbcJODdQNcpRi eEX7NC9ACj7NXADgV32RfM2LSXhiEn06MyAJzeSAd8TtbsPlj18hKazSflootbwGLlUh /rJFLZ2ZRvtxRab5wUvMnJW4tJMj9yzw+kL9l1aZ3thEdNdeHBO0/7f5mUDNSHZEOkDZ aV3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXK1M9mJOC/GGleGJq3xT7u5MgcGs+9arvt0kwS+fWa8/W9EG650H4SfugthtfoOdsbi4GvBchRpvbnfpg== X-Received: by 10.36.65.4 with SMTP id x4mr22551607ita.69.1485911092675; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:04:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: ermal.luci@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.129.99 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:04:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170120151511.GR78888@zxy.spb.ru> References: <678042cf-9d5f-2f39-6689-30eadf4214a7@freebsd.org> <20170120151511.GR78888@zxy.spb.ru> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ermal_Lu=C3=A7i?= Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:04:52 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: IsSnRZQ9mOEGiQOsUuinfjEkrj8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: all network people please review this proposal: because someone is going to commit it soon. D5017 To: Slawa Olhovchenkov Cc: Julian Elischer , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , Randall Stewart Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 01:04:53 -0000 On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:00:18PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > Unless eri gets to it first I will. > > > > see https://reviews.freebsd.org/D5017 > > > > If you have a server, you can put an arbitrary number of clients on > > the same port number because they all have different addresses. > > > > However in the case of a client accessing multiple servers we are > > limited to 65535 sessions because we strictly don't allow the same > > port to be used more than once. This is silly because TCP is a > > symmetrical protocol and of it works for the server it should work for > > the client. > > > > So this patch changes the allocation of ports to allow the client to > > use a port that has been used before as long as the previous port user > > is not talking to the same host/port. This removes the limitation of a > > freebsd machine being only capable of contacting 65000 hosts in a > > single port shutdown timeout period. With modern machines capable of > > initiating MILLIONS of sessions per second, having a limitation of > > 65000 per 2 minutes is a bit silly. > > > > > > Please read the patch if you suspect this will have a bad effect of > > any sort. Once the session is started there is no record as to who > > started it so any issues would have to be in the startup phase. > > Good. > Can you use also destination port and source IP in same way as > destination address? > This is an improvement over the proposal. Let the existing proposal go in than can improve it even more. -- Ermal