Re: TCP timestamp starting value

[Edgar Fuß <ef%math.uni-bonn.de@localhost>]

> Let me illustrate this by just pointing to the wide spread use of NAT today.
OK, that's a good point. As it's known to me that elsewhere, NATing some 100 
machines behind a single v4 address doesn't cause problems with the load 
balancer mentioned, the problem is probably more the repeated use of the same 
(low) value range than decreasing values.

> As I said, I don't really have a problem with using
> HASH(src,dst) + uptime as initial timestamp value.
You mean HASH(src,dst,cookie)?
Some questions about the details:
-- why incorporate src into the hash?
-- do you mean to use hash32_buf() for HASH or something more elaborate?
-- do you propose to use the full 32-bit result (which may cause a timestamp 
   wrap-around) or only use some lower bits?