Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 20:02:55 -0500 From: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu> To: dg@root.com Cc: netdev@roxanne.nuclecu.unam.mx, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ok, final sockhash changes, new diff Message-ID: <199703020102.UAA09468@jenolan.caipgeneral> In-Reply-To: <199703020059.QAA00208@root.com> (message from David Greenman on Sat, 01 Mar 1997 16:59:21 -0800)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 /_____________/ / // /_/ ><
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703020102.UAA09468>