Re: Tcp question.

2002-09-20 Thread Julian Elischer
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > 000221 C.ssh > B.916: . [tcp sum ok] ack 66194 win 24624 > > nop,nop,timestamp 259781842 16260556> (DF) > > (ttl 64, id 18252, len 52) > > **why wait here**? > > 003030 C.ssh > B.916: . [tcp

Re: Tcp question.

2002-09-20 Thread Julian Elischer
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Barney Wolff wrote: > I think you need to separate out tcp behavior from ssh behavior. > A & C are clearly not the same tcp/ssh implementation, and I'm > not even sure B is consistent between the two runs - for example, > B's window size is different, as is the amount of da

Re: Tcp question.

2002-09-20 Thread Mike Silbersack
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > 000221 C.ssh > B.916: . [tcp sum ok] ack 66194 win 24624 > nop,nop,timestamp 259781842 16260556> (DF) > (ttl 64, id 18252, len 52) > **why wait here**? > 003030 C.ssh > B.916: . [tcp sum ok] ack 68930 win 24624 > nop,nop,timestamp 259781842 162

Re: Tcp question.

2002-09-20 Thread Mike Silbersack
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > > Also, is C really a FreeBSD box? I didn't think we used window sizes > > > of 24K. > > > > No C is Solaris > > A and B are FreeBSD 4.4+patch > > Ah, that explains it. Yeah, there was a threa

Re: Tcp question.

2002-09-20 Thread Mike Silbersack
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > Also, is C really a FreeBSD box? I didn't think we used window sizes > > of 24K. > > No C is Solaris > A and B are FreeBSD 4.4+patch Ah, that explains it. Yeah, there was a thread about this on -stable in the last month. Solaris is deferrin

Re: Tcp question.

2002-09-20 Thread Barney Wolff
I think you need to separate out tcp behavior from ssh behavior. A & C are clearly not the same tcp/ssh implementation, and I'm not even sure B is consistent between the two runs - for example, B's window size is different, as is the amount of data it sends before setting the P bit. With ssh doin

Re: Tcp question.

2002-09-20 Thread Julian Elischer
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > OK so I have 3 machines: > > > > > > A--routerB---routerC > > > > > > if I send data from B to A I see 7MB/sec. > > if I send data from B to C I see 700KB/sec > > > > tcpd

Re: Tcp question.

2002-09-20 Thread Julian Elischer
p.s. just for kicks I turned off newreno and set teh slowstart flightsize up.. net.inet.tcp.local_slowstart_flightsize: 65535 net.inet.tcp.newreno: 0 no real difference. On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > OK so I have 3 machines:

Re: Tcp question.

2002-09-20 Thread Julian Elischer
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > OK so I have 3 machines: > > > > > > A--routerB---routerC > > > > > > if I send data from B to A I see 7MB/sec. > > if I send data from B to C I see 700KB/sec > > > > tcpd

Re: Tcp question.

2002-09-20 Thread Mike Silbersack
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > OK so I have 3 machines: > > > A--routerB---routerC > > > if I send data from B to A I see 7MB/sec. > if I send data from B to C I see 700KB/sec > > tcpdump shows some odd behaviour in the slow link: > (tcpdump run from (B))

Tcp question.

2002-09-20 Thread Julian Elischer
OK so I have 3 machines: A--routerB---routerC if I send data from B to A I see 7MB/sec. if I send data from B to C I see 700KB/sec tcpdump shows some odd behaviour in the slow link: (tcpdump run from (B)) The initial negotiation appers as: 00 DAL-DMZ-IFACE.916 >

Re: ppp client-callback

2002-09-20 Thread Michael Bretterklieber
Hi, do you have the intention to implement this in the near future? bye, Archie Cobbs schrieb: > Michael Bretterklieber writes: > >>Does mpd support client-callback? > > > No, sorry. > > -Archie > > __ > Archie Cobbs

Re: IP[6]FW and active FTP

2002-09-20 Thread Michael Bretterklieber
Hi, add to your natd.conf the punch_fw option bye, Vincent Jardin schrieb: > Hi, > > I am wondering howto support non passive FTP sessions with IPFW or IP6FW. It > looks that IPFilter supports this feature, but what's about the regular > FreeBSD Firewall ? > > I would prefer to use ipfw bec

Re: VTUN PING TIME

2002-09-20 Thread Lars Eggert
soheil h wrote: > Hi list > I have several vtun sessions about 40 sessions on one server > It works nice till now but it's about 3 days that the ping time goes up > to 3000 ms over the tunnel (while the ping time not over the tunnel is > 650 ms ) ... Since the ping time over the base network do

VTUN PING TIME

2002-09-20 Thread soheil h
Hi list I have several vtun sessions about 40 sessions on one server It works nice till now but it's about 3 days that the ping time goes up to 3000 ms over the tunnel (while the ping time not over the tunnel is 650 ms ) the type is TUN with lzo:5 and proto udp i omit the compression and cha