>Please do.   Since this discussion re-surfaced, no-one has argued against it.

Done. I have heard, but consciously did not adopt, your suggestion
about passing dst-address.



>  | Compared to the routing table, you care about both local and remote
>  | addresses, and about *per-IP-address* state not per subnet (or per
>  | route state).
>

[...]

>It isn't worth attempting to include the source address - different source
>addresses to communicate with the same destination happens so rarely that
>the improvement, considered against the extra work, just wouldn't be worth
>the bother.

For me, its actually fairly common for the muli-homed tests I run
(I have an .. unusual setup). Point taken, though.

[  ... much snippage I will come back to later... ]

>ps: what's the point that you can see in htons() the ID in the non-random case
>?

No compelling reason. I do have first-hand knowledge that _some_
fogeys^H^H^H^H^H occasionally use the linear IP_id as a debugging aid.
(No disparagement, I've done it myself once or twice, years ago.)

But the deciding factor was that I wanted to get back to *exactly* the
status-quo before we start the 2.0 release cycle.  I'd support
discussion of of pruning out the htons() after 2.0.