On Dec 22, 2004, at 13:16, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Li, Qing wrote:It appears the TCP urgent pointer is off by 1. In RFC-1122, section 4.2.2.4 on Page 83 describes the urgent pointer error in RFC-793. The 6.0-CURRENT code has the urgent pointer set to (LAST+1). Any comments before I sent a PR ?
No, please do and send me the PR number.
It may be well-known here, but this is a long-standing issue. It's been around since 4.2 days. Cf. the discussions in Stevens's UNPv12e (p. 566) and TCP/IP Illustrated, v1 (p 292-296).
It may be impolitic to change this :=}
Regards,
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large *
Institute for General Semantics | "Weaseling out of things is what
| separates us from the animals.
| Well, except the weasel."
| - Homer J Simpson
*--------------------------------------*-------------------------------*
_______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
