On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:17:25 EDT erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> wrote: > > imho you are thinking too hard. plan9 behavior doesn't have > > to be "intuitively" correct; it has to match what the rfc > > says. your first message said "icmp unreachable messages do > > not terminate the connection". this is not necessarily a bug > > no. that's not what i said. i said, icmp unreachable messages > *sometimes* terminate the connection. and there's no excuse > for that unreliablity. the packet was not dropped by the nic.
no such thing as "icmp unreachable". presumably you mean icmp with type == destination unreachable? but even that is ambiguous. did you actually check it is the *same* type & code? if so it is indeed a bug. may be that is what you meant but your message was ambiguous.
