On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 07:40:50 -0400 Richard reckons: [..] > Then I started thinking (always a fruitless endeavor), why would a *BSD > based firewall/"IP stack" drop the corresponding SYN-ACK when it was > activated? And that thought just fucking bugged me to no end. I could > accept some crazy IBM "IP stack" not dealing with *BSD, but this was > *BSD box to *BSD box on the return path that dropped the packet. Also, > according to the original poster bang.swox.se has no problems > communicating with other systems and he has no problems communicating to > vm.se.lsoft.com.
I can't help with the Real Problem here, hence Subject change, but .. [..] > ** After looking through "Stevens TCP/IP Illustrated" I can find no > reference to what sequence number a RST packet should have if a SYN-ACK > precedes it. I'm unsure whether the RST should ACK the SYN + 1, as a > SYN consumes a byte in normal operation, or return the ISN to the > sending host. But as sending a RST in response to a SYN-ACK is not > normal operation; such ambiguities would likely be left to the > programmers discretion. In this case IBM not a stack derived from *BSD. Secondly, the IBM TCP/IP stack and most userland network utilities were declaredly BSD-derived at least through the '90s OS/2 times - and likely much earlier, but I've not played with an IBM mainframe since '73 :) But firstly, I wonder why you'd expect IBM to run 'some crazy' stack? > this now opens a whole new box of worms?!?!? Hopefully not .. Cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"