Re: TCP and syncache question

2008-11-21 Thread Hartmut Brandt
Andre Oppermann wrote: Harti Brandt wrote: Hi Andre, On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Andre Oppermann wrote: AO>This is a bit more complicated because of interactions with tcp_input() AO>where syncache_expand() is called from. AO> AO>The old code (as of December 2002) behaved slightly different. It wo

Re: TCP and syncache question

2008-11-21 Thread Hartmut Brandt
Andre Oppermann wrote: Harti Brandt wrote: Hi Andre, On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Andre Oppermann wrote: AO>This is a bit more complicated because of interactions with tcp_input() AO>where syncache_expand() is called from. AO> AO>The old code (as of December 2002) behaved slightly different. It wo

Re: TCP and syncache question

2008-11-20 Thread Andre Oppermann
Harti Brandt wrote: Hi Andre, On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Andre Oppermann wrote: AO>This is a bit more complicated because of interactions with tcp_input() AO>where syncache_expand() is called from. AO> AO>The old code (as of December 2002) behaved slightly different. It would AO>not remove the synca

Re: TCP and syncache question

2008-11-20 Thread Andre Oppermann
Rui Paulo wrote: On 17 Nov 2008, at 22:40, Andre Oppermann wrote: This is a bit more complicated because of interactions with tcp_input() where syncache_expand() is called from. The old code (as of December 2002) behaved slightly different. It would not remove the syncache entry when (SND.UNA

Re: TCP and syncache question

2008-11-19 Thread Harti Brandt
Hi Andre, On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Andre Oppermann wrote: AO>This is a bit more complicated because of interactions with tcp_input() AO>where syncache_expand() is called from. AO> AO>The old code (as of December 2002) behaved slightly different. It would AO>not remove the syncache entry when (SND.UN

Re: TCP and syncache question

2008-11-19 Thread Rui Paulo
On 17 Nov 2008, at 22:40, Andre Oppermann wrote: This is a bit more complicated because of interactions with tcp_input() where syncache_expand() is called from. The old code (as of December 2002) behaved slightly different. It would not remove the syncache entry when (SND.UNA == SEG.ACK) bu

Re: TCP and syncache question

2008-11-17 Thread Andre Oppermann
Andre Oppermann wrote: Hartmut Brandt wrote: Rui Paulo wrote: On 15 Nov 2008, at 20:08, Hartmut Brandt wrote: Hi, in tcp_syncache.c:syncache_expand() there is a test that the acknowledgement number and the sequence number of an incoming ACK segment are in the expected range. If they are n

Re: TCP and syncache question

2008-11-17 Thread Andre Oppermann
Hartmut Brandt wrote: Rui Paulo wrote: On 15 Nov 2008, at 20:08, Hartmut Brandt wrote: Hi, in tcp_syncache.c:syncache_expand() there is a test that the acknowledgement number and the sequence number of an incoming ACK segment are in the expected range. If they are not, syncache_expand() r

Re: TCP and syncache question

2008-11-16 Thread Rui Paulo
On 16 Nov 2008, at 12:55, Hartmut Brandt wrote: Rui Paulo wrote: On 15 Nov 2008, at 20:08, Hartmut Brandt wrote: Hi, in tcp_syncache.c:syncache_expand() there is a test that the acknowledgement number and the sequence number of an incoming ACK segment are in the expected range. If they

Re: TCP and syncache question

2008-11-16 Thread Hartmut Brandt
Rui Paulo wrote: On 15 Nov 2008, at 20:08, Hartmut Brandt wrote: Hi, in tcp_syncache.c:syncache_expand() there is a test that the acknowledgement number and the sequence number of an incoming ACK segment are in the expected range. If they are not, syncache_expand() returns 0 and tcp_input

Re: TCP and syncache question

2008-11-15 Thread Rui Paulo
On 15 Nov 2008, at 20:08, Hartmut Brandt wrote: Hi, in tcp_syncache.c:syncache_expand() there is a test that the acknowledgement number and the sequence number of an incoming ACK segment are in the expected range. If they are not, syncache_expand() returns 0 and tcp_input drops the segme