lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectProblems with SunOS -> Linux 1.99.8 TCP
    Date
    Please excuse the quoting, I'm resending this message.

    > Last week my department changed from CAP on SunOS to Netatalk on Linux
    > (1.99.7) for printer. In general all has gone well. The problem
    > relates to lpr/lpd on the our Suns (running SunOS 4.1.4).
    >
    > If I send a file from SunOS (or Solaris 2.5) using lpd the result is
    > the following
    >
    > > Active Internet connections (w/o servers)
    > > Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State
    > > tcp 0 1 stat8.stat.auckl:printer stat4.stat.auckland:1023 CLOSE
    > > tcp 0 0 stat8.stat.aucklan:login stimpy.math.aucklan:1017 ESTABLISHED
    >
    >
    > That is, the socket is left in the CLOSE state.
    >
    > If I do it from Linux 1.99.8, the result is the following
    >
    > > Active Internet connections (w/o servers)
    > > Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State
    > > tcp 0 0 stat8.stat.auckl:printer stimpy.math.aucklan:1021 CLOSE_WAIT
    > > tcp 0 0 stat8.stat.aucklan:login stimpy.math.aucklan:1017 ESTABLISHED
    >
    >
    > That is, the socket is left in the CLOSE_WAIT state.
    >
    >
    > With lpd, because it does not accept connections from non priviledged
    > ports, it (and lpq, lprm) start at 1023 and count down, trying to bind
    > to a port. It finds a port is has recently bound to, say 1023, and
    > then tries to connect to the lpd server. Now, because Linux is in the
    > CLOSE state with the identical port number (SunOS having believed it
    > had finished with it and hence able to reuse it) refuses this new
    > connection.
    >
    > The practical upshot of this is if you print from SunOS using lpr,
    > then normally lpq and lprm don't work, since the try to connect, get a
    > connection refused and time out after a while. This is a problem, but
    > not fatal (but it would be nice if it would go away).
    >
    >
    > I've noticed (after checking) that telnet leaves the socket in a
    > TIME_WAIT state.
    >
    > Thanks for any help.
    >
    >
    >
    > Ross
    >
    >
    >
    > --A41C67F70.833362625=_/vger.rutgers.edu--
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.019 / U:62.312 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site