|To:||Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver.|
|From:||Paul Jakma <paul@xxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:16:34 +0000 (GMT)|
|Cc:||Thomas Spatzier <thomas.spatzier@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|References:||<OF88EC0E9F.DE8FC278-ONC1256F4A.0038D5C0-C1256F4A.00398E11@xxxxxxxxxx> <4196B4E9.40502@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411150735070.10262@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Paul Jakma wrote:
non-raw/header-included sockets, eg BGP tcp sockets, a user like GNU Zebra / Quagga would much prefer packets to be dropped.
Ur... not for TCP.. obviously.Anyway, is there any advice on how applications that use a single socket for raw/udp should deal with this new behaviour? All of the link-orientated routing protocol daemons in Quagga/GNU Zebra are going to break on Linux with this new behaviour.
Should such applications be changed to open a seperate socket per interface? Or could we have a SO_DROP_DONT_QUEUE sockopt to allow a privileged application to retain the previous behaviour, or some way to flush the queue for a socket?
Using a socket per interface wont address problem of sending quite stale packets when a link comes back after a long time down, AUI. (not a huge problem - but not nice).
Jeff??? regards, -- Paul Jakma paul@xxxxxxxx paul@xxxxxxxxx Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: Assertions when lowering tcp_tso_win_divisor, David S. Miller|
|Next by Date:||Acer Aspire 1524WLMi and RealTek 8169 - very slow, Richard Dawe|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver., Paul Jakma|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [patch 4/10] s390: network driver., Thomas Spatzier|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|