[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
    On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 00:21 +0400, Paul P Komkoff Jr wrote:
    > Replying to Vlad Yasevich:
    > > /* This is only to work around buggy Windows95/2000
    > > * VJ compression implementations. If the ID field
    > > * does not change, they drop every other packet in
    > > * a TCP stream using header compression.
    > > */
    > Unfortunately, cisco IOS also complains that packets are "duplicate".
    > And, regarding to your previous message on how to fix this - IIRC, if
    > I do connect() on this socket, it will refuse to receive datagrams
    > from hosts other than specified in connect(), and I will be unable to
    > bind another socket to the same port on my side.
    > That said, the only solution which is close to what been before, will
    > be to keep one socket for receive, and create socket for each router I
    > am communicating with, right?

    Yewwww... I see you problem.

    To me this sounds like a bug in IOS. I hope someone else would comment.

    I did previously search a bunch of RFC and nowhere did a find a
    requirement that IDs should be non-zero when DF bit is set. The only
    time IP IDs are mentioned is in the fragmentation and reassembly


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-05-22 23:12    [W:0.025 / U:48.808 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site