[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1336166057.3752.468.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 23:14:17 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Perry Lorier <perryl@...gle.com>,
Matt Mathis <mattmathis@...gle.com>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
Wilmer van der Gaast <wilmer@...gle.com>,
Dave Täht <dave.taht@...ferbloat.net>,
Ankur Jain <jankur@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: be more strict before accepting ECN
negociation
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:01 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> >
> > Interesting indeed ;)
> >
> > Did you check if it was spoofed ?
> >
> > (did the 3WHS really completed)
>
>
> Well, the tcpdump command was still:
>
>
> tcpdump -i eth0 -vvv '(tcp[tcpflags]& tcp-syn != 0)&& (ip[1] != 0x0)'
>
> I didn't see any SYN|ACKs go out, but netperf.org would have had to set
> ECT for me to see a SYN|ACK going out. FWIW, this is on a 2.6.31-15
> (Ubuntu) kernel with net.ipv4.tcp_ecn = 2 and I don't think the SYNs
> themselves were negotiating ECN:
>
> 13:26:16.866007 IP (tos 0x3,CE, ttl 41, id 28850, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 64)
> somesystemin.de.55363 > www.netperf.org.www: Flags [S], cksum
> 0x4cfc (correct), seq 304457158, win 65535, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale
Probably not, or else you would see :
13:26:16.866007 IP (tos 0x3,CE, ttl 41, id 28850, offset 0, flags
[DF],proto TCP (6), length 64)
somesystemin.de.55363 > www.netperf.org.www: Flags [SEW], cksum ...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists