From: Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:35:50 -0700
> I thought the ID's even in non-fragmented datagrams gave an idea of how
> many IP datagrams had been sent along, and so an idea of how "unlikely"
> it was that a datagram with holes could be reassembled?
The code you a
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Rick Jones wrote:
I thought the ID's even in non-fragmented datagrams gave an idea of how many
IP datagrams had been sent along, and so an idea of how "unlikely" it was
that a datagram with holes could be reassembled?
Only fragmented datagrams get counted. This is
David Miller wrote:
From: Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:44:55 -0700
Doesn't that mechanism rely on watching the IP ID's between the pair of
IPs? For both fragmented and non-fragmented datagrams? If so, does
always setting the IP ID to zero when DF is set affect tha
From: Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:44:55 -0700
> Doesn't that mechanism rely on watching the IP ID's between the pair of
> IPs? For both fragmented and non-fragmented datagrams? If so, does
> always setting the IP ID to zero when DF is set affect that mechanism?
Onl
A while back (I cannot recall exactly when) the issue of always setting
the IP datagram ID to zero when the DF bit was set was brought-up. I
suggested it might not be a good idea because there are admittedly
broken devices out there that "helpfully" and silently clear DF and the
start to fragm
