[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If I set a rule to reject your connection's packets, this is NOT a > > transient thing. Retrying the packet will simply elicit another rejection > > from the firewall... > > How did the packet reach this firewall? Firewall (if it is not > embedded to destination host) cannot differ packets lost in the internet > of "administaratively obeyed" to it. It is an ICMP _port_ unreachable. Transient routing failures never generate this. host_unreach and net_unreach are considered transient but not port_unreach. See the comment above icmp_err_convert table. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP Taral
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP kuznet
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP Jamie Lokier
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP kuznet
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP Jamie Lokier
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states o... kuznet
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* stat... Taral
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... kuznet
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... Jamie Lokier
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... kuznet
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... Jamie Lokier
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... kuznet
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... Jamie Lokier
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... Taral
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... Jamie Lokier
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... kuznet
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... Jamie Lokier
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... kuznet
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* ... Jamie Lokier
