On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:49:19PM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> On Saturday, October 30, 2010 08:53:03 Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 02:22:00PM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> > > Add pack/unpack of IPv6 address in sync message
> > > in binary form similar to the ASCII ::
> > >
> > > A packed IPv6 address constists of -
> > > first byte
> > > high nibble first segment leng in bytes
> > > low nibble possition of last segment.
> > > then
> > > First segemnt i.e. left side of ::
> > > Last segment right side of ::
> > >
> > > Examle FC00::2
> > > unpacked FC00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0002
> > > packed 1F FC02
> > > Example 2 2003::2:100
> > > unpacked 2003 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0002 0100
> > > packed 2D 20 03 02 01 00
> > Hi Hans,
> > are you sure the space saved is worth the additional complexity
> > that this patch introduces?
> > --
> Hello Simon
> I can see that my first mail 0/1 is still in my outbox.....
> that mail contains just the question above and some calculations
> My conclusion was that if you have 100M interface and a x64 CPU with a more
> optimized version
> than it might be worth to pack the IPv6 Address.
> On a 32bit CPU with 1G interfce the packing consume the same time that you
> might earn
> The patch is just an example of how to do it,
> Sorry for the confusion that I created without the [RFC PATCH 0/1]
> The intension was to ask if anyone thinks that packing of IPv6 address should
> be there ?
> I would say, much pain for little gain
I tend to agree with that assessment.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html