Jamie Lokier wrote: > So to report "no I've no daemon running here" to those systems and get a > quick response, you have to send RSTs instead of ICMPs. I had a moment of inspiration :-) Would this work safely on both hosts and routers? Even with Russian BGP flapping? :) - "reject" sends RSTs in response to SYN+no ACK TCP frames - "reject" sends ICMP port unreachables to all other TCP frames -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- 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 Taral
- 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 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 of TCP Jamie Lokier
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP kuznet
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP Paul Rusty Russell
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP Dan Hollis
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP Alan Cox
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP Matti Aarnio
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP Taral
- Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP Tim Fletcher
- Re: 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
