Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:06:56 +0400 (MSD) From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: mbuf chain Message-ID: <20020926140529.P64981-100000@news1.macomnet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20020926025730.J6503-100000@patrocles.silby.com> References: <20020926025730.J6503-100000@patrocles.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[...] > I don't believe that mbuf fragments have any relationship to IP > fragmentation. > > And while you mention it, the IP fragmentation handling code is another > place where we need to add mbuf merging/chaining. > > I've been thinking about this, actually. How many IP fragments will a > packet ever truly have? If you assume a 1500 byte ethernet packet broken > into 200 byte chunks, that's < 8. If you break a jumbo frame into 1500 > byte packets, that's < 7. Can there be any normal use of fragmentation > that would produce more than 10 or so fragments? Also, will overlapping > fragments really ever be seen, or can we just assume that's a sign of > abuse? > > Sorry for the sudden change of direction for this thread, I've been > pondering how to improve our resistance to mbuf exhaustion through ip > frags. There is net.inet.ip.maxfragpackets but IMHO net.inet.ip.maxfragperpacket will be useful too. -- Maxim Konovalov, MAcomnet, Internet Dept., system engineer phone: +7 (095) 796-9079, mailto:maxim@macomnet.ru To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020926140529.P64981-100000>