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

freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to