From owner-freebsd-current Tue May 4 20:24:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from alcanet.com.au (border.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C574E1501A for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 20:24:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <40393>; Wed, 5 May 1999 13:09:37 +1000 Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 13:23:58 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: Any action on PR 10570 ? getting closer to 65K :-( To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <99May5.130937est.40393@border.alcanet.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Matthew Dillon wrote: > I think the worst case you might see is on the order of 50,000 or so > route entries. ... > It take a phenominally stupid network setup to create more > then that. With Path MTU Discovery (which is on by default), you effectively create a distict route for every host. Currently, routes appear to take ~20 minutes to expire. It seems perfectly reasonable for a big FTP or WWW server to see 50,000 different hosts in this period. This is getting fairly close to the 64K possible entries. > The number would not be effected much (if at all) IPV4 verses IPV6. IPV6 gives you a bigger worst case, but shouldn't affect the typical behaviour. Why is there such resistance to moving from a short to an int? Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message