From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Mar 1 17:56:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA13004 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 17:56:12 -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 RAA12999 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 17:56:10 -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 UAA10333; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 20:55:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by jenolan.caipgeneral (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA09547; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 20:55:35 -0500 Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 20:55:35 -0500 Message-Id: <199703020155.UAA09547@jenolan.caipgeneral> From: "David S. Miller" To: proff@suburbia.net CC: dg@root.com, netdev@roxanne.nuclecu.unam.mx, hackers@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <19970302015140.2160.qmail@suburbia.net> (proff@suburbia.net) Subject: Re: ok, final sockhash changes, new diff Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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 /_____________/ / // /_/ ><