Nico, Sorry to put you back on-list, but I KNEW I forgot something...
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 04:19:38PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > I thought we didn't like comments with "XXX" in them nor the names (or > nicknames, such as KEBE, which I gatehr is your nickname :) of > developers in source files. THESE are meant to indicate questions to be answered by reviewers. They all disappear before putback. They're designed to be obnoxious. :) So if you see XXX or especially KEBE, it means I have a question that needs answering. > If a re-reading of RFCs 3947/8 is needed then, why not do it? > > I don't think we care about keepalive drop stats, but we should know if > we do... Okay. > I gather that ESP-in-UDP is fairly costly (e.g., we re-compute the IP > header checksum for local purposes only). For now, we recycle the packet back into existing ESP paths. Something like PEF will help a lot here (since the "compute header checksum" event comes before "check ESP-in-UDP"). > Probably no big deal since the systems using this are hardly HPC systems > and probably have bottlenecks other than the CPU, but maybe a comment is > worthwhile. Agreed. Also, it's possible I can recompute the checksum incrementally. Dan
