[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <527D7320.4050008@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:26:24 -0800
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] tcp: randomize TCP source ports
On 11/07/2013 06:04 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 17:07 -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>> For perhaps most definitions of well deployed. There is at least one
>> load balancer which, while it offers TCP Window Scaling, does not also
>> offer TCP Time Stamps...
>>
>> By rights they should (must) be offering TCP Time Stamps, and they are,
>> I am told, "working on it."
>>
>> Is all going to be "well" when it is the (non-Linux) remote system which
>> has the TIME_WAIT endpoint?
>
> Hey, tell us why netperf does a bind(port=0, addr=ANY) and SO_REUSEADDR
> tricks before connect()
>
> It seems you do request randomization, but you do not want it for
> applications written by innocent people...
That bind() call is not there to request randomization of the TCP source
port.
The bind() call in src/nettest_bsd.c/create_data_socket() is so
netserver can report a port number back to netperf. It is also there so
a TCP_CRR test can explicitly use more than the configured ephemeral
port range. It is also used when setting explicit port numbers for
getting through firewalls.
In the establish_control() path the bind() call is also there to allow
specifying an explicit port number for the control connection. I just
don't bother avoiding the call when someone hasn't selected an explicit
client-side port number for the control connection.
happy benchmarking,
rick jones
--
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