Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy.. While working on ip.h stuff | From | Andi Kleen <> | Date | 27 Feb 2001 00:23:04 +0100 |
| |
Michael Peddemors <michael@linuxmagic.com> writes:
> A few things.. why is ip.h not part of the linux/include/net rather than > linux/include/linux hierachy?
Because it needs to be user visible for raw sockets (linux is exported to the user, net isn't)
> Defined items that are not used anywhere in the source.. > Can any of them be deleted now?
nope. they can be useful for the user.
> Also, I was looking into some RFC 1812 stuff. (Thanks for nothing Dave :) and > was looking at 4.2.2.6 where it mentions that a router MUST implement the End > of Option List option.. Havent' figured out where that is implememented yet..
It is (see net/ipv4/ip_options:ip_options_compile())
> Also was trying to figure out some things. > I want to create a new ip_option for use in some DOS protection experiments. > I have a whole 40 bytes (+/-) to share... Now although I don't see anything > explicitly prohibiting the use of unused IP Header option space, I know that > it really was designed for use by the sending parties, and not routers in > between.. Has anyone seen any RFC that explicitly says I MUST NOT?
Using IP options is strongly deprecated because it causes a lot of switches/routers to go from hardware into software switch mode (-> it kills your gigabit routers)
> IPTOS_PREC_NETCONTROL [...] They are implemented, just only implicitely as an array index.
-Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |