On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 04:56:41PM +0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > Connection established, and I send no data
>
> But why did you set DEFER_ACCEPT then? 8)
I was just experimenting.
> It becomes legal, as soon as we do not enter ESTABLISHED
> state. Your ACK is just ignored and we continue to retransmit
> SYN-ACK being in SYN-RECV.
With my patch applied:
43.392834 l.1311 > l.2500: S 3232293621:3232293621(0) win 32280 <mss
16152,sackOK,timestamp 336478 0,nop,wscale 0> (DF) [tos 0x10]
43.392948 l.2500 > l.1311: S 3229276625:3229276625(0) ack 3232293622 win 32280 <mss
16152,sackOK,timestamp 336478 336478,nop,wscale 0> (DF)
43.393018 l.1311 > l.2500: . ack 1 win 32280 <nop,nop,timestamp 336478 336478> (DF)
[tos 0x10]
(time passes, and I send some data)
51.370011 l.1311 > l.2500: P 1:3(2) ack 1 win 32280 <nop,nop,timestamp 373276 336478>
(DF) [tos 0x10]
51.370102 l.2500 > l.1311: R 3229276626:3229276626(0) win 0 (DF) [tos 0x10]
Ok, this surely is incorrect. However, sending spurious SYNACK packets
doesn't seem like the way to solve this problem. I know it complicates the
kernel, but if we do connection preprocessing, shouldn't we also do teardown
in case of timeout?
Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,
bert hubert
--
PowerDNS Versatile DNS Services
Trilab The Technology People
'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
