RE: reassembly of fragments

Eric Kluft (eric@gondolin.com)
Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:08:59 +0100

I agree on this.
I was however wrong with my first mail. You are violating ip-rules when you
implement this. You won't get in trouble though, except:
- If you have a backuproute to the internet (You can loose 1 package
when fragments are sent when a router is going down and it's function is
taken over by another router).
- There are backuproutes from the internet to you (same problem).
I can't imagine a router sending fragments of the same original package to
different routes under normal operation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Lokier [mailto:ln@tantalophile.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 7:10 PM
To: Alan Cox; Eric Kluft
Cc: gopin@cse.iitk.ac.in; linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: reassembly of fragments

Alan Cox wrote:
> There are specific reasons for end point defragmentation,
and they arent
> efficiency related ones - different fragments may take
different routes,
> so any given non end point host may not see all the
fragments

And as this doesn't apply to a firewall using a single
router, feel free
to defragment there. Just remember it won't be reliable if
you add more
connections to the net.

-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu