From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2816A21F1CF for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 04:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 858ED9C; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 13:27:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5CF9A; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 13:27:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 13:27:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Baptiste Jonglez In-Reply-To: <20130702110838.GD24656@ens-lyon.fr> Message-ID: References: <20130701164607.GB12090@ens-lyon.fr> <871u7hesmm.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <20130702110838.GD24656@ens-lyon.fr> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net, babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org, Juliusz Chroboczek Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Babel-users] RTT stability inside a GRE tunnel X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 11:27:23 -0000 On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > Is there a reason for this slow-path routing of ICMP? They thought they needed to inspect/act on some/all ICMP traffic at the time they designed the forwarding ASIC, so they just punted all ICMP to CPU. These platforms have other shortcomings from being designed in the late 90:ties, but I know people who still have them in production because if you don't have too many flows (they have a per-destination based forwarding cache), they still work fairly well. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se