Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 20:55:35 -0500 From: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu> To: proff@suburbia.net Cc: dg@root.com, netdev@roxanne.nuclecu.unam.mx, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ok, final sockhash changes, new diff Message-ID: <199703020155.UAA09547@jenolan.caipgeneral> In-Reply-To: <19970302015140.2160.qmail@suburbia.net> (proff@suburbia.net)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: proff@suburbia.net Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 12:51:40 +1100 (EST) No, you only need 8 bits of entropy if your hash table is 256 entries long. This is easily contained in the remote addr, remote port and local port. It doesn't matter how many thousands of virtual addr port 80's you have, because the same port at the same remote will not be connecting to them all at the same time. Infact you could probably get away with just using the remote port and remote addr. What if you have a seperate listening socket for port 80 on each of those IP aliases? I've seen people actually do this. ---------------------------------------------//// 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 /_____________/ / // /_/ ><
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703020155.UAA09547>