Quoting Leon Woestenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Good call, but maybe first check this with a good book on TCP, or even the RFC (if this describes this corner case unambiguously).
Sorry, I did read some in "TCP/IP Illustrated" before posting but I'm a newbie on TCP. I've now checked with RFC793 and I believe it proves my point. Regards, Johan http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html (page 36, Reset Generation) 2. If the connection is in any non-synchronized state (LISTEN, .... If the incoming segment has an ACK field, the reset takes its sequence number from the ACK field of the segment, otherwise the reset has sequence number zero and the ACK field is set to the sum of the sequence number and segment length of the incoming segment. The connection remains in the same state. (page 65, SEGMENT ARRIVES) If the state is LISTEN then first check for an RST An incoming RST should be ignored. Return. second check for an ACK Any acknowledgment is bad if it arrives on a connection still in the LISTEN state. An acceptable reset segment should be formed for any arriving ACK-bearing segment. The RST should be formatted as follows: <SEQ=SEG.ACK><CTL=RST> Return. _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
