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
