-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
better answer late, than never..
To conclude: We won't get to a common opinion on that I guess.
I just wanted to draw your attention (from time to time, maybe once a
year) onto that this 0,52% IPv6-stuff isn't real life, honestly.
99,48% are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So, finally please understand also, that there is a 99,48%-world
besides v6 which has to work as it is.
Finally, please understand that your IPv6 discussion in this thread is
pointless, off topic and and unproductive. It draws attention away from
On 4/30/12 12:34 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2012-04-30 8:11 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
I agree it would blow up the dcache and be worse than what exists by a lot.
So, out of this conversation:
1) It would be nice to not
On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 14:48 -0700, Dave Täht wrote:
+
+-#define tcp_flag_word(tp) ( ((union tcp_word_hdr *)(tp))-words [3])
++#define tcp_flag_word2(tp) ( ((union tcp_word_hdr *)(tp))-words [3])
++#define tcp_flag_word(tp) ( __get_unaligned_cpu32union tcp_word_hdr
*)(tp))-words
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:49 AM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 14:48 -0700, Dave Täht wrote:
Thank you very much for the code review!
+
+-#define tcp_flag_word(tp) ( ((union tcp_word_hdr *)(tp))-words [3])
++#define tcp_flag_word2(tp) ( ((union
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
Tell it to however wired up this chip and shipped it in qty millions.
Actually that message was already received, successor chipsets from
this manufacturer did it up right.
So the real problem is that the ar71xx doesn't allow you to DMA to
On 2012-04-30 4:49 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
Tell it to however wired up this chip and shipped it in qty millions.
Actually that message was already received, successor chipsets from
this manufacturer did it up right.
So the real problem
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 7:49 AM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
Tell it to however wired up this chip and shipped it in qty millions.
Actually that message was already received, successor chipsets from
this manufacturer did it up
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
On 2012-04-30 4:49 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
Tell it to however wired up this chip and shipped it in qty millions.
Actually that message was already received, successor
On 2012-04-30 5:08 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
On 2012-04-30 4:49 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
Tell it to however wired up this chip and shipped it in qty millions.
Actually that
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
On 2012-04-30 5:08 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
On 2012-04-30 4:49 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
Tell it to
On 2012-04-30 8:11 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
On 2012-04-30 5:08 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
On 2012-04-30 4:49 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 11:11 -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
On 2012-04-30 5:08 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Felix Fietkau n...@openwrt.org wrote:
On 2012-04-30 4:49 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon,
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 20:34 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
There could be a generic Kconfig variable which could be selected by CPU
targets or ethernet drivers (with a dependency on
!HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS).
That's cleaner than messing around with #define stuff manually.
Don't just
On 04/30/2012 06:48 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 20:34 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
There could be a generic Kconfig variable which could be selected by CPU
targets or ethernet drivers (with a dependency on
!HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS).
That's cleaner than messing
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 19:16 +, Karl P wrote:
As a user, I _never_ want to have to go and turn on the switch that says,
make
my device work as fast as it can
Is there any reason that I would _not_ want this?
You may only have a printer, or something like that, attached to the
crappy
On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 14:48 -0700, Dave Täht wrote:
+--- a/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6t_LOG.c
b/net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6t_LOG.c
+@@ -64,9 +64,9 @@ static void dump_packet(struct sbuff *m,
+ /* Max length: 44 LEN=65535 TC=255 HOPLIMIT=255 FLOWLBL=F */
+ sb_add(m, LEN=%Zu TC=%u
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 00:51 +0200, Michael Markstaller wrote:
(I remember the IPv6-day last year, it was funny, even Google failed
30-50%..)
That's an... interesting assertion that I've not heard before. Google's
own analysis was significantly different. They said:
We carried about 65% more
On 12-04-23 06:51 PM, Michael Markstaller wrote:
Agreed but lets get realisitic, my objectives (home, office
customers) are:
1) security
2) it works
3) technically perfect
You forgot:
4) sustainable
Do you have children? I suspect you don't. Your lack of forward/future
thinking
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 07:04 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
Do you have children? I suspect you don't. Your lack of
forward/future thinking indicates that. It's amazing how one's
perspective of the future changes when one starts thinking about the
future of their children rather than just
Le 24/04/2012 10:41, David Woodhouse a écrit :
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 00:51 +0200, Michael Markstaller wrote:
a) It's a big security risk at first as noone really knows whats going
on with IPv6 (at least on customer/user-side!)
With respect, that's complete crap. The security implications are
Would it be too much to ask for those expending time on this debate,
to expend a little extra time doing some code review and testing this
patch?
Or, like while the flames are being composed, merely sending data through it?
This particular patch improves ipv4 by over 10% especially when used
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 03:23:50PM +0200, Emmanuel Deloget wrote:
There is no evidence that a pure B2B or B2C market will deplete the
IPv4 address space any time soon. The only problem with the IPv4 address
space is that it's too small for M2M communication.
Asia-PAC has *already* run out
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 01:49:18AM +0200, Michael Markstaller wrote:
Appreciate your work really but just my 5ct: noone needs IPv6 if not in
search for troubles or many new (security)-problems.
Welcome to the 21st century.
There are ISPs in Asia today(!) that *will* *not* give you an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
though really OT, its a really important point for a Router-Distro
as which I love OpenWRT; so I'd want to explain my point.
And I also read the RIPE-lists where I often have to swallow *not* to
respond to all those IPv6-hurrays which arent
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Dave Täht dave.t...@bufferbloat.net wrote:
This updates the existing unaligned_access_hacks patch to
reduce unalignment traps to nearly zero for ipv4 and ipv6,
in the normal path, in encapsulation, for native apps,
and in the qdiscs.
While I have tested these
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 02:22 +0200, Michael Markstaller wrote:
Am 23.04.2012 01:52, schrieb Dave Taht:
It should keep working with the --disable-ipv6 switch.
That sounds good ;)
Again: I appreciate your work from a technical point of view, also
understand this might be good at some point in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here in the 21st century, Legacy IP addresses are running out.
Really, where ? :p
This story is told for 10yrs now..
And if, lets get get back some /8 from someone using them for 500
hosts instead of NAT and we're off for pretty some time..
28 matches
Mail list logo
