From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
Cc: "David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Perry Lorier" <perryl@google.com>,
"Matt Mathis" <mattmathis@google.com>,
"Yuchung Cheng" <ycheng@google.com>,
"Neal Cardwell" <ncardwell@google.com>,
"Tom Herbert" <therbert@google.com>,
"Wilmer van der Gaast" <wilmer@google.com>,
"Dave Täht" <dave.taht@bufferbloat.net>,
"Ankur Jain" <jankur@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: be more strict before accepting ECN negociation
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 22:49:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1336164546.3752.460.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FA43DCE.8040901@hp.com>
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 13:36 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> On 05/04/2012 01:20 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
> > True, I'm looking at more than the ECN bits, but in the 90 minutes the
> > tcpdump has been running there have been no packets with the any of the
> > 8 bits at ip[1] being 1 anyway :) Netperf.org doesn't get a massive
> > quantity of traffic. It may go the entire week-end or longer without
> > seeing such a packet.
>
> I see fate is working as intended, or someone decided to try to feed me
> my words :) for within 6 minutes of my sending the above I got:
>
> 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
> 3,nop,nop,TS val 288116308 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0
> 13:26:17.831880 IP (tos 0x3,CE, ttl 41, id 6911, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 64)
> somesystemin.de.55367 > www.netperf.org.www: Flags [S], cksum
> 0x17aa (correct), seq 586073737, win 65535, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale
> 3,nop,nop,TS val 288117270 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0
> 13:26:17.831929 IP (tos 0x3,CE, ttl 41, id 28924, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 64)
> somesystemin.de.55368 > www.netperf.org.www: Flags [S], cksum
> 0x07cc (correct), seq 1513398047, win 65535, options [mss
> 1460,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 288117271 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0
> 13:26:17.831952 IP (tos 0x3,CE, ttl 41, id 2494, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 64)
> somesystemin.de.55366 > www.netperf.org.www: Flags [S], cksum
> 0x75f4 (correct), seq 1153058420, win 65535, options [mss
> 1460,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 288117270 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0
> 13:26:17.832177 IP (tos 0x3,CE, ttl 41, id 6854, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 64)
> somesystemin.de.55365 > www.netperf.org.www: Flags [S], cksum
> 0xfca0 (correct), seq 2332522875, win 65535, options [mss
> 1460,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 288117270 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0
> 13:26:17.832239 IP (tos 0x3,CE, ttl 41, id 64733, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 64)
> somesystemin.de.55364 > www.netperf.org.www: Flags [S], cksum
> 0x7414 (correct), seq 1544827132, win 65535, options [mss
> 1460,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 288117270 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0
> 13:26:38.649126 IP (tos 0x3,CE, ttl 41, id 9860, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 64)
> somesystemin.de.55369 > www.netperf.org.www: Flags [S], cksum
> 0x6270 (correct), seq 683091230, win 65535, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale
> 3,nop,nop,TS val 288137968 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0
> 13:26:39.417589 IP (tos 0x3,CE, ttl 41, id 13478, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 64)
> somesystemin.de.55370 > www.netperf.org.www: Flags [S], cksum
> 0x2862 (correct), seq 3168323595, win 65535, options [mss
> 1460,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 288138734 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0
>
> rick
Interesting indeed ;)
Did you check if it was spoofed ?
(did the 3WHS really completed)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-04 20:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-04 15:14 [PATCH net-next] tcp: be more strict before accepting ECN negociation Eric Dumazet
2012-05-04 15:54 ` Neal Cardwell
2012-05-04 16:06 ` David Miller
2012-05-04 18:09 ` Rick Jones
2012-05-04 18:23 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-05-04 18:48 ` Rick Jones
2012-05-04 19:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-05-04 20:20 ` Rick Jones
2012-05-04 20:36 ` Rick Jones
2012-05-04 20:49 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2012-05-04 21:01 ` Rick Jones
2012-05-04 21:14 ` Eric Dumazet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1336164546.3752.460.camel@edumazet-glaptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=dave.taht@bufferbloat.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jankur@google.com \
--cc=mattmathis@google.com \
--cc=ncardwell@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=perryl@google.com \
--cc=rick.jones2@hp.com \
--cc=therbert@google.com \
--cc=wilmer@google.com \
--cc=ycheng@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox