Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:43:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:43:27 -0500 Received: from [204.244.205.25] ([204.244.205.25]:18246 "HELO post.gateone.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:43:07 -0500 From: Michael Peddemors Reply-To: michael@linuxmagic.com Organization: Wizard Internet Services To: Craig Milo Rogers Subject: Re: [UPDATE] zerocopy.. While working on ip.h stuff Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:53:30 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.95.0] Content-Type: text/plain In-Reply-To: <2137.983232656@ISI.EDU> In-Reply-To: <2137.983232656@ISI.EDU> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0102261753300I.02007@mistress> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Craig Milo Rogers wrote: > > > I have a whole 40 bytes (+/-) to share... Now although I don't see > > > anything explicitly prohibiting the use of unused IP Header option .. > > > in between.. Has anyone seen any RFC that explicitly says I MUST NOT? > > > >Not to my knowledge. Routers already change the time to live field, > >so I see no reason why they can't do smart things with special IP > >options either (besides efficiency concerns :-). I know they 'rewrite/extend' existing options, but have never seen a case where a router adds an option to a packet beyond those based on what the original sender set.. > I've forgotten how the Stream ID option was implemented, but I > won't be surprised if a router inserted it on the fly (but it was > probably inserted by end systems). On the other hand, there was also Hmm, have to look at a little history.. > a competing philosophy that said that the IP checksum must be > recomputed incrementally at routers to catch hardware problems in the > routers, and an incremental recomputation when changing the size of > the header would be more work. ah.. we do recalculate IP Checksums now.. when we update any of the timestamp rr options etc.. > The one thing I would worry about is unleashing mutant IP > packets upon the world at large. I hope the proposed experiments have > a very good firewall. It would be very nice to attempt to acquire an > officially blessed IP option number for such experiments before > unleashing these packets upon an unprepared world. > > Craig Milo Rogers Ah, we better have a good firewall No, if this goes past concept phase, we will try for de official bless. -- "Catch the magic of Linux...." -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Peddemors - Senior Consultant Unix Administration - WebSite Hosting Network Services - Programming Wizard Internet Services http://www.wizard.ca Linux Support Specialist - http://www.linuxmagic.com -------------------------------------------------------- (604)?589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada -------------------------------------------------------- - 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/