Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)

[Paul P Komkoff Jr]

Replying to David S. Miller:
 That's my position too and I'm pretty much going to ignore any
 request to change this behavior.

Accorind to this article, some people count this as security issue:
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/427622

Well ... someone with Cisco support contract can open a TAC case on
this ?

-- 
Paul P 'Stingray' Komkoff Jr // http://stingr.net/key - my pgp key
 This message represents the official view of the voices in my head
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)

[Paul P Komkoff Jr]

Replying to Vlad Yasevich:
 /* This is only to work around buggy Windows95/2000
  * VJ compression implementations.  If the ID field
  * does not change, they drop every other packet in
  * a TCP stream using header compression.
  */

Unfortunately, cisco IOS also complains that packets are duplicate.
And, regarding to your previous message on how to fix this - IIRC, if
I do connect() on this socket, it will refuse to receive datagrams
from hosts other than specified in connect(), and I will be unable to
bind another socket to the same port on my side.

That said, the only solution which is close to what been before, will
be to keep one socket for receive, and create socket for each router I
am communicating with, right?

-- 
Paul P 'Stingray' Komkoff Jr // http://stingr.net/key - my pgp key
 This message represents the official view of the voices in my head
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html