On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/27/2011 12:23, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 08/02/2011 03:47 p.m., Doug Barton wrote:
[catching up with e-mail]
I've been up and running on this patch vs. r218391 for over 24 hours
now, using algorithm 4 (as someone said is now the default in Linux)
without any problems.
I think Bjoern is better qualified than I to comment on the style of the
patch, but it applies cleanly, and seems to run fine on both v4 and v6.
Has this been commited to the tree, already? -- If so, what's the
default algorithm?
Bjoern was planning to do it, I'm going to do it if he doesn't get around to
it.
As for default algorithm, is there any reason not to make it 4?
Yes, it's expensive both computation time and stack wise. Last I put
MD5ctxs on the stack I was told that it was previously avoided do to
stack limits. I haven't seen complaints on lists about it but it
possibly still true for small embedded.
I'd also like to see a proper benchmark before switching the default
on both state of the art and a soekris kind class of machine.
That said I messed with the patch to avoid the two copies of the
algorithms (so it will not be 4 soon). I know it compiles but I have
yet to test it. I'd love to hear opinions. The #ifdef INET6/INETs
are ugly but we'll see those a lot more and need to figure out
differnt ways to our code was written the last 10 years.
http://people.freebsd.org/~bz/20110303-01-rfc6056.diff
The patch also includes a bugfix for the ipv6 case wrt to
"un-binding" on error.
/bz
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
