On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:22:16PM -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:15 PM, John-Mark Gurney <j...@funkthat.com> wrote: > > > Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote this message on Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 00:34 +0300: > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:43:33PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > > > > In this case may be do range allocation of ID (per-CPU)? > > > For example, allocate 128 ID, not one ID? > > > > Do you mean what to do in the case of an atomic packet? > > > > Per RFC: > > In atomic datagrams, the IPv4 ID field has no meaning; thus, it can > > be set to an arbitrary value, i.e., the requirement for non-repeating > > IDs within the source address/destination address/protocol tuple is > > no longer required for atomic datagrams: > > > > You can just set it to 0, or any value we feel like. > > > > My reading was to give each CPU its own range from which to allocate IDs, > to guarantee that there are no collisions between CPUs.
Yes. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
