On Friday 21 December 2007 15:46, Robert Hailey wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2007, at 7:28 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > Is this wise? It usually indicates a moderately serious problem, if > > there are > > many of them there may be e.g. a link layer bug ... ? I suppose > > eventually > > we'll get a PacketSequenceException in that case, so maybe NORMAL? > > These > > could also indicate deliberate replays, though I don't see much > > point, and we > > may not want to log them if so.. > > Before decreasing it so, I would get this message very frequently. It > may be a local router duplicating packets (which doesn't know the best > route?).
Or it might be a link level problem in our code, which IMHO is more likely atm. > > IIRC, the deal with UDP is that (1) you may not get the sent packet, > (2) you may not get them FIFO, and (3) you might not get only one of > them. > > So far as deliberate replays... seeing that the very next statement we > ignore the packet, you are right: the only possible DoS would involve > excessive logging, and no log statement at all would be better. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20071221/da201243/attachment.pgp>
