> > 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.
that is what i ment. i'm not sure what else i can say. i thought that http://9fans.net/archive/2011/06/2 was pretty clear that the only difference was the host itself. the icmp messages were the same modulo host and connection specific bits. so i'm going to give up now. it's clear i can't get my point across. - erik
