Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-25 Thread Jesper Skriver
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:23:55AM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 11:56:18PM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > jesper@tam% time telnet 195.41.23.1 > > Trying 195.41.23.1... > > telnet: connect to address 195.41.23.1: No route to host > > telnet: Unable to connect to remote h

Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-25 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 11:56:18PM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > jesper@tam% time telnet 195.41.23.1 > Trying 195.41.23.1... > telnet: connect to address 195.41.23.1: No route to host > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host > 0.000u 0.020s 0:00.70 2.8% 88+164k 0+0io 12pf+0w > > But that

Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-24 Thread Jesper Skriver
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 05:20:13AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 04:34:05AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:20:44PM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 03:49:52AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > > > > > > > I still think

Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-23 Thread Garrett Wollman
< said: > The first too, so connections won't wait for timeout if the routers tell > you that the net/host is unreachable. They're supposed to -- that's intentional. Unreachables are *transient* events. Getting just one doesn't imply anything. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We

Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-22 Thread Jesper Skriver
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 04:34:05AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:20:44PM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 03:49:52AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > > > > > I still think we should react to the following as a minimum > > > - type 3 code 0 n

Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-22 Thread Jesper Skriver
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:20:44PM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 03:49:52AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > > > I still think we should react to the following as a minimum > > - type 3 code 0 net unreachable > > - type 3 code 1 host unreachable > > RFC 1122, Sect

Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-22 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 03:49:52AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > I still think we should react to the following as a minimum > - type 3 code 0 net unreachable > - type 3 code 1 host unreachable RFC 1122, Section 4.2.3.9 says: oDestination Unreachable -- codes 0, 1, 5

Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-22 Thread Jesper Skriver
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 06:54:12PM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote: I was just about to send a MFC of the current code out for review, will ditch that ... > I recently had a bug report regarding kqueue, where the kevent() call > for a TCP socket would return because so_error was set, but the > conne