No. That fix is not relevant. I'll take a look at this in a bit (after I fix the other SACK issue reported a couple of days ago).
mohan --- Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:15:35AM +1300, Sam Jansen wrote: > > During some testing on an isolated network we have, I found some > > interesting behaviour from a FreeBSD 5.3 host using TCP SACK. > > > > I've detailed this problem fully at: > > > > http://www.wand.net.nz/~stj2/nsc/emu_freebsd.html > > > > PCAP traces and some screenshots from tcptrace graphs can be found at > > the above link to show what is happening. It looks to me like SACK > > blocks are being incorrectly generated in this example. I can't think of > > any valid reason why a SACK block would SACK from below the current ACK > > value to above it (which is the problem here). > > > > Thoughts, anyone? Am I just wrong here and this is valid, expected > > behaviour? > > A fix to the SACK code was committed yesterday, which may or may not > be relevant. > > Kris > > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
