[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89i+b-LeaPvaaHvj0yc0mJ2qwZ0981fQHVp0+sqXYp=kdkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:56:10 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Rajotte-Julien <joraj@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [regression] TCP_MD5SIG on established sockets
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:39:27 -0700
>
> > The (C) & (B) case are certainly doable.
> >
> > A) case is more complex, I have no idea of breakages of various TCP
> > stacks if a flow got SACK
> > at some point (in 3WHS) but suddenly becomes Reno.
>
> I agree that C and B are the easiest to implement without having to
> add complicated code to handle various negotiated TCP option
> scenerios.
>
> It does seem to be that some entities do A, or did I misread your
> behavioral analysis of various implementations Mathieu?
>
> Thanks.
Yes, another question about Mathieu cases is do determine the behavior
of all these stacks vs :
SACK option
TCP TS option.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists