[3863] in linux-net channel archive
Re: route broken in 2.0.7
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lilo)
Fri Jul 26 02:48:22 1996
From: lilo <TaRDiS@mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:07:05 -0500 (CDT)
To: "really kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru" <inr-linux-net@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
cc: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <4t59h0$g7s@flint.inr.ac.ru>
There are always systems where better routing usage accounting would be
helpful. I have a couple (and a couple where I'm much more interested in
having CPU available :). A configurable option would be greatly appreciated
if such is possible....
lilo
On 24 Jul 1996, really kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:
> Date: 24 Jul 1996 17:47:12 +0400
> From: "really kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru" <inr-linux-net@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
> To: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: route broken in 2.0.7
>
> Bernd Eckenfels (ecki@inka.DE) wrote:
> : really kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru <inr-linux-net@ms2.inr.ac.ru> wrote:
> : : Total usage count is not accounted anywhere now.
>
> : Honestly I think those numbers are realy good for nothing. They only help
> : you to debug the Caching code, but users would like to see the real usage of
> : a route. What do u think? Perhaps both numbers?
>
> Is it necessary? I believed firewall code is more useful for accounting.
>
> Well, if it is really desired, I could make it.
> But remember, this feature will eat CPU nanoseconds and memory.
>
> To be honest, I planned to remove this usage count at all,
> and just forgot to make it 8)
> If you look at fib_node structure, it takes exactly 1 paragraph
> when usage count is excluded. (Great win for BGP4 router.)
>
> Alexey Kuznetsov.
>
>
