From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Mar 1 17:03:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA10397 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 17:03:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from caipfs.rutgers.edu (root@caipfs.rutgers.edu [128.6.37.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA10381 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 17:03:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from jenolan.caipgeneral (jenolan.rutgers.edu [128.6.111.5]) by caipfs.rutgers.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA09197; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 20:03:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by jenolan.caipgeneral (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA09468; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 20:02:55 -0500 Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 20:02:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199703020102.UAA09468@jenolan.caipgeneral> From: "David S. Miller" To: dg@root.com CC: netdev@roxanne.nuclecu.unam.mx, hackers@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <199703020059.QAA00208@root.com> (message from David Greenman on Sat, 01 Mar 1997 16:59:21 -0800) Subject: Re: ok, final sockhash changes, new diff Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 16:59:21 -0800 Hmmm. It seems that it might be better to add in the laddr if it contains additional variable information, but I don't see how not doing so would be a degenerate case when having a lot of IP aliases. The faddr, lport, and fport are still just as variable as in the non-lots-of-aliases case, so the hash distribution should be the same. Good point, but alas there was a reason I considered it useful to add in the laddr to the hash, give me some time and I'll remember what the reason exactly was (it happens to cost nothing anyways ;-). ---------------------------------------------//// Yow! 11.26 MB/s remote host TCP bandwidth & //// 199 usec remote TCP latency over 100Mb/s //// ethernet. Beat that! //// -----------------------------------------////__________ o David S. Miller, davem@caip.rutgers.edu /_____________/ / // /_/ ><