Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-04 Thread Barney Wolff
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:19:43AM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Don Lewis wrote: > > > Randomizing DNS query IDs without repeating any particular ID too > > quickly is a similar problem. I contributed some code to for this to > > BIND version 8 a number of years ago. Se

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-03 Thread Mike Silbersack
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Don Lewis wrote: > Randomizing DNS query IDs without repeating any particular ID too > quickly is a similar problem. I contributed some code to for this to > BIND version 8 a number of years ago. See the nsid stuff in > /usr/src/contrib/bind/bin/named/ns_main.c. There are s

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-02 Thread Mike Silbersack
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote: > The random generator indeed works badly. If it was truely random it > should generate a collision only every (1/range) on average. Maybe > the arc4random function reuses the same or small number of initial vectors > all over again leading to the same

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-02 Thread Don Lewis
On 2 Jun, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: > > Hello! > >> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:07:35 -0500 (CDT) >> From: Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> >>> A port should not be reused this fast. Maybe the randomness isn't >>> so random after a

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-02 Thread Dmitry Pryanishnikov
Hello! On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Barney Wolff wrote: > Is the problem that the two systems have different ideas of MSL? I haven't changed default net.inet.tcp.msl: 3 on server. Note that on client side, connection never goes to TIME WAIT, because during active FTP server side closes data connec

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-02 Thread Barney Wolff
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:41:51PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > have 16383 non-repeated port numbers before the first repeat). > > The random generator indeed works badly. If it was truely random it > should generate a collision only every (1/range) on average. Maybe > the arc4random functi

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-02 Thread Andre Oppermann
Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: > > Hello! > > > Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:07:35 -0500 (CDT) > > From: Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > >> A port should not be reused this fast. Maybe the randomness isn't > >> so random after all a

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-02 Thread Dmitry Pryanishnikov
t about real-life everyday usage of 4.10+ based clients and servers. Will revision 1.147 of sys/netinet/in_pcb.c solve this problem on server's side (by letting server to open this server.20->client.PORT TCP session despite having another server.20->client.PORT session in TIME_WAIT)? If so, i

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-01 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 07:03:27PM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:05:35PM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > > Sounds like something that should be dealt with on the server's end. Some > > > of the changes we've made in

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-01 Thread Mike Silbersack
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote: > A port should not be reused this fast. Maybe the randomness isn't > so random after all and choses the same port over again and again? We use arc4random, so I don't think that's likely, but it is possible. > > A simpler solution might be to use pass

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-01 Thread Mike Silbersack
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:05:35PM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > Sounds like something that should be dealt with on the server's end. Some > > of the changes we've made in 5.x might fix the problem, but I don't think > > anyone has looked into that

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-01 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:05:35PM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: > > > The main question is: how to prevent this situation? Of course, as a > > workaround I can set net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized to zero, but what's > > the real solution? Is

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-01 Thread Andre Oppermann
Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: > > > The main question is: how to prevent this situation? Of course, as a > > workaround I can set net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized to zero, but what's > > the real solution? Is it FTP-client or FTP-server that should ta

Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-01 Thread Mike Silbersack
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: > The main question is: how to prevent this situation? Of course, as a > workaround I can set net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized to zero, but what's > the real solution? Is it FTP-client or FTP-server that should take care of > the previous DATA port

net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts

2004-06-01 Thread Dmitry Pryanishnikov
Hello! I've tried to install 4.10-RELEASE via FTP several times, but every time (earlier or later) FTP transfers were aborted with code "425 Failed to establish connection.", and FTP site selection menu popped up again. My FTP server is vsftpd-1.2.2 server built from fresh ports on 4.7-RELEASE s