Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to breakudp (more specifically, WCCP?)
From: Vlad Yasevich
Date: Mon May 22 2006 - 17:09:37 EST
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 00:21 +0400, Paul P Komkoff Jr wrote:
> Replying to Vlad Yasevich:
> > /* This is only to work around buggy Windows95/2000
> > * VJ compression implementations. If the ID field
> > * does not change, they drop every other packet in
> > * a TCP stream using header compression.
> > */
> Unfortunately, cisco IOS also complains that packets are "duplicate".
> And, regarding to your previous message on how to fix this - IIRC, if
> I do connect() on this socket, it will refuse to receive datagrams
> from hosts other than specified in connect(), and I will be unable to
> bind another socket to the same port on my side.
> That said, the only solution which is close to what been before, will
> be to keep one socket for receive, and create socket for each router I
> am communicating with, right?
Yewwww... I see you problem.
To me this sounds like a bug in IOS. I hope someone else would comment.
I did previously search a bunch of RFC and nowhere did a find a
requirement that IDs should be non-zero when DF bit is set. The only
time IP IDs are mentioned is in the fragmentation and reassembly
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/