Re: route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional

2004-12-04 Thread Andre Oppermann
Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 09:02:46PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > A> If we are talking about a multi-gigabit gif tunnel server then I'd agree > A> that we need some form of optimzation. But for everything it's simply > A> not going to make a difference. Doing a route lo

Re: route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional

2004-12-04 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 09:02:46PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> If we are talking about a multi-gigabit gif tunnel server then I'd agree A> that we need some form of optimzation. But for everything it's simply A> not going to make a difference. Doing a route lookup is fast enough for A> any n

Re: route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional

2004-12-04 Thread Andre Oppermann
Valentin Nechayev wrote: > > Hi, > > Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 19:15:29, glebius wrote about "Re: route cacheing for > gif(4) should be optional": > > A>> However there have been reasons for > A>> storing the rtentry pointer in struct gif. In the

Re: route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional

2004-12-04 Thread Valentin Nechayev
Hi, Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 19:15:29, glebius wrote about "Re: route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional": A>> However there have been reasons for A>> storing the rtentry pointer in struct gif. In the old days ip_output() A>> required an rtentry pointer to be pass

Re: route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional

2004-11-29 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 04:14:01PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 09:55:10PM -0500, James wrote: A> > J> On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 05:06:41PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: A> > J> > Back to this problem: A> > J> > A> > J> > http://freebsd.rambler.ru/bsdmail/freebsd-net_200

Re: route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional

2004-11-29 Thread Andre Oppermann
Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 09:55:10PM -0500, James wrote: > J> On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 05:06:41PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > J> > Back to this problem: > J> > > J> > http://freebsd.rambler.ru/bsdmail/freebsd-net_2004/msg01305.html > J> > > J> > I've found two more people

Re: route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional

2004-11-26 Thread James
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 12:13:16PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: [ snip ] > > There is no LINK3 flag :) Heheh, good call ;) > > However, gif(4) does not use LINK0 flag. It was used in past. We can utilize > it now. Any objections? I have no objections myself as long as this option is separated

Re: route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional

2004-11-26 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 09:55:10PM -0500, James wrote: J> On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 05:06:41PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: J> > Back to this problem: J> > J> > http://freebsd.rambler.ru/bsdmail/freebsd-net_2004/msg01305.html J> > J> > I've found two more people who dislike this feature of gif(4).

Re: route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional

2004-11-25 Thread James
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 05:06:41PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Back to this problem: > > http://freebsd.rambler.ru/bsdmail/freebsd-net_2004/msg01305.html > > I've found two more people who dislike this feature of gif(4). > So I'd like to make it optional. > > We already have LINK2 flag remo

route cacheing for gif(4) should be optional

2004-11-25 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
Back to this problem: http://freebsd.rambler.ru/bsdmail/freebsd-net_2004/msg01305.html I've found two more people who dislike this feature of gif(4). So I'd like to make it optional. We already have LINK2 flag removing sourceroute filter from gif(4), which is commonly used in asymmetrically r