From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martijn Lievaart Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix NAT TCP sequence adjustment Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:39:17 +0200 Message-ID: <4266CC05.5040103@rtij.nl> References: <4250FA72.3020502@trash.net> <20050404204716.GA4067@linuxace.com> <20050406044806.GA9711@linuxace.com> <4263108E.1030707@trash.net> <20050419005847.GA591@linuxace.com> <42666F4C.5080706@trash.net> <20050420155308.GA7057@linuxace.com> <42667E51.3060005@trash.net> <20050420172406.GB7057@linuxace.com> <42669674.3020905@trash.net> <20050420182505.GA7612@linuxace.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Harald Welte , Rusty Russell , netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org, Patrick McHardy Return-path: To: Phil Oester In-Reply-To: <20050420182505.GA7612@linuxace.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Phil Oester wrote: >On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 07:50:44PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >>>I'm aware of that, but again I claim that it is irrelevant in this case >>>because the PORT commands will not be processed out of order (even if the >>>data packets are), and thus the adjustments will occur sequentially. >>> >>> >>Why wouldn't they be processed out of order by nat? >> >> > >Because a second transfer will not be started until the first completes >in my experience. Thus, there will not be two 'PORT' packets floating >around to potentially arrive out of order > > > Some Windows graphical FTP frontends do multiple transfers. I think one should take these into account. OTOH, how often do PORT commands arrive out of sequence even given that it is possible? M4