On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 07:17:37PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Luigi Iotti:
> > 02:11:15.006582 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 43044, offset 0, flags [DF], proto:
> > TCP (6), length: 52) 192.168.0.100.smtp > squid-cache.org.54737: ., cksum
> > 0x1d47 (correct), 134:134(0) ack 2380 win 46 <nop,nop,timestamp 1599101060
> > 4005670333>
> > 0x0000: 4500 0034 a824 4000 4006 9fea c0a8 0064 [EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]@......d
> > 0x0010: 0ca0 2509 0019 d5d1 b1de 244a 32f0 333b ..%.......$J2.3;
> > 0x0020: 8010 002e 1d47 0000 0101 080a 5f50 5884 .....G......_PX.
> > 0x0030: eec1 adbd ....
>
> The receiver says (win 46) that it has room for 46 bytes of data.
>
> > 02:12:17.735768 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 46, id 55626, offset 0, flags [DF], proto:
> > TCP (6), length: 86) squid-cache.org.54737 > 192.168.0.100.smtp: .
> > 2380:2426(46) ack 134 win 65535
> > 0x0000: 4500 0056 d94a 4000 2e06 80a2 0ca0 2509 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 0x0010: c0a8 0064 d5d1 0019 32f0 333b b1de 244a ...d....2.3;..$J
> > 0x0020: 5010 ffff 4328 0000 6e20 7468 6520 6375 P...C(..n.the.cu
> > 0x0030: 7272 656e 7420 332e 302e 5354 4142 4c45 rrent.3.0.STABLE
> > 0x0040: 3130 0d0a 7061 636b 6167 652e 0d0a 6874 10..package...ht
> > 0x0050: 7470 tp
>
> Two seconds later we have 46 bytes of data from the sender.
Or is window scaling in effect? And perhaps an edge firewall at the
sender's edge system that fails to take window scaling into account?
We'd need to see the initial TCP handshake (SYN, SYN-ACK, ACK). This could
be another recent case of poor interaction between WS>0 and firewalls.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
