Re: Dynamic IP hack (PR#294)

Erik Corry (erik@arbat.com)
Tue, 20 Oct 1998 14:40:49 +0200


On Tue, Oct 20, 1998 at 01:54:24PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Erik Corry wrote:
> > There's no solution here that doesn't violate protocol
> > requirements. If someone presses the big red button and
> > we reboot in under 120s we also violate the time wait
> > requirements of the TCP protocol.
>
> And the only person we might screw up is ourselves in that case.

Who else do we screw up in the other case?

> If you simply supress sending with source addresses you dont currently
> posess then the kernel is behaving right. Diald can and should be left
> to sort the rest out.

Or ipppd or pppd, or even manually operated non-dial-on-demand
PPP connections with dynamic addresses. In all those cases you
have the problem that the app hangs and isn't told that the
socket is dead. Which it is.

> I still believe this hack doesnt belong in 2.1.x

I'm sorry to hear that, especially since you were the
one that put it in 2.0. Let me make a prediction that
if no better solution appears, the hack will be in SuSE's
version of 2.2. I have no connection with SuSE, but they
have a lot of ISDN customers, and something like this is
very important to them.

-- 
Erik Corry erik@arbat.com           Ceterum censeo, Microsoftem esse delendam!

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/