Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:43:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using timestamp option of ip header (IPOPT_TS) Message-ID: <200006220343.XAA42436@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <200006220225.WAA35025@whizzo.transsys.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0006210858450.22741-100000@jungle.owlnet.rice.edu> <200006220225.WAA35025@whizzo.transsys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:25:45 -0400, "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> said: > I don't think you want any IP options present at all. Depending on the > specific implementations in routers, some (most?) will punt IP datagrams > with options to a conventional CPU to process. It's even worse than that... some routers will punt any packets which: - are fragmented - have options - don't have the ``right'' protocol field The second is well-known; I've heard of the first and have actually measured the third. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick 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?200006220343.XAA42436>