Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 12:51:40 +1100 (EST) From: proff@suburbia.net To: davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu (David S. Miller) Cc: dg@root.com, netdev@roxanne.nuclecu.unam.mx, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ok, final sockhash changes, new diff Message-ID: <19970302015140.2160.qmail@suburbia.net> In-Reply-To: <199703020040.TAA09403@jenolan.caipgeneral> from "David S. Miller" at "Mar 1, 97 07:40:50 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> address with the lower word...but perhaps this would be just extra > overhead (since your analysis seems to show the distribution is > already quite good). > > Keep in mind that if you don't consider the local address in the hash > you'll get screwed on machines with thousands of IP aliases doing > virtual web service for many blocks of class C's. No, you only need 8 bits of entropy if your hash table is 256 entries long. This is easily contained in the remote addr, remote port and local port. It doesn't matter how many thousands of virtual addr port 80's you have, because the same port at the same remote will not be connecting to them all at the same time. Infact you could probably get away with just using the remote port and remote addr. -- Prof. Julian Assange |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people |together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks proff@iq.org |and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970302015140.2160.qmail>