Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Advanced Search
Author
Subject
Message
Special notice only

72 results from messages in tcp-impl

Advanced Search
  • > On typical servers, a new incoming connection usually implies that a daemon > will be spawn or something like that, in other words, resources will be > consumed. If that malicious person can get a view into how you are denying > his SYN attack, he might be able to tune the attack and kill your > server/router/etc. I think you need to be more specific on why the extra info can be...
    Kacheong Poon Aug 17, 2000
  • > Actually you made me realise a worse problem. It isnt the options and option > space that is a pain, its the sudden change of MSS relative to the MTU due > to additional header overhead Because of SACK option, TCP needs to deal with that anyway... And for stacks which handle the case when one end suddenly stops sending timestamp option so that TCP also stops sending it, they...
    Kacheong Poon Aug 9, 2000
  • > Can anybody think of *any* compelling argument agaist droping the prohibition > against new TCP options appearing after a SYN? I guess this question should also be sent to the ROHC group. I don't know if they are prepared to handle this kind of things... K. Poon. kcpoon@^$1
    Kacheong Poon Aug 9, 2000
  • Fetching Sponsored Content...
  • Included message from Ian Heavens : >---- >Off the topic of this list, but I wonder if SCTP could benefit >from analysis of the experiences of TCP with RSTs, since it >is not widely deployed (e.g. an error code with the SCTP ABORT) >---- SCTP ABORT already has an error code. So are you suggesting TCP should adopt what is defined there? K. Poon kcpoon@^$1
    Kacheong.Poon@Eng.Sun.COM Aug 3, 2000
  • > Assume that segment A is the original one sent by the receiver to us > (sender) and it got delayed. Now receiver is retransmitting and it so > happens that old (delayed) segment A comes to us. Here are the cases: > > - New A has a newer ACK (i.e. SEG.ACK > SND.WL2). We don't care what > window this segment has. We blindly use it. (The window could have very > well been shrunk by...
    Kacheong Poon Jun 30, 2000
  • > I knew you would say this :-)). If you were doing "keep alive" style > window probes, you would run into the problem that I mentioned. I > personally don't like the 1-byte window probe scheme. On a second thought, I guess by keep alive style, you mean sending a fake byte or use old sequence number to send the zero window probe. Do I guess correctly? K. Poon. kcpoon@^$1
    Kacheong Poon Jun 30, 2000
  • > I knew you would say this :-)). If you were doing "keep alive" style > window probes, you would run into the problem that I mentioned. I > personally don't like the 1-byte window probe scheme. What do you mean by "keep alive" style window probe? Do you mean probing zero window every 2 hours? And what is your objection to 1 byte zero window probe? K. Poon. kcpoon@^$1
    Kacheong Poon Jun 30, 2000
  • > Isn't it possible for a receiver who is retransmitting to us to send > window updates (when the application at the receiving side picked up new > data)? Also, when the receiver is retransmitting, not every segment > needs to ACK new data (perhaps we stopped temporarily, perhaps our data > didn't make it to the receiver), even if it were bidirectional. What I was trying to say is...
    Kacheong Poon Jun 30, 2000
  • > Hey, stop! I tried to code this and immediately found, that > window is updated if: > > if (SEG.SEQ > SND.WL1 || > SEG.ACK > SND.UNA || > SEG.WND > SND.WND) > > In other words, it accepts each window expansion not depending on anything. Interesting! So one really needs to write the code to really know what one is thinking C: It is not obvious to me from reading those checks...
    Kacheong Poon Jun 30, 2000
  • > Look: > > > OR if ((SND.WL2 == SEG.ACK) && (SEG.WND > SND.WND)) > > includes SND.WL1==SEG.SEQ in my version. I did this because > otherwise it will result in spurious window reopens by old segments. Yup, I missed this line. But I think we should include SND.WL1==SEG.SEQ. I just replied to Ramesh asking whether he really means that he wants TCP to accept window update from "old...
    Kacheong Poon Jun 30, 2000