On Jul 28, 2014 7:18 AM, "Eggert, Lars" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2014-7-28, at 16:00, Erik Nygren <[email protected]> wrote: > > I do wonder if protecting RSTs and thus other parts of the header as well is more tractable with both endpoints using IPv6 (where NAT66 is strongly discouraged and privacy addressing may help some with the reboot case depending how how clients handle rotating priv addrs across reboots) ? > > Maybe. With privacy addressing, if one side reboots, it can't send a protected RST anymore anyway (because it will generate a different source address, which the other side won't accept an RST from).
Back up a sec. If I get a RST and ignore it, then the connection times out as there is no ACK. Am I missing something here? Sincerely, Watson Ladd > > Lars > > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
