Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+fix\s+tcp_default_win

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+fix\s+tcp_default_win_scale\.\s*$/: 58 ]

Total 58 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:47:41 -0700; Recent TCP changes exposed the problem that there ar lots of really broken that strip or alter TCP options. When the options are modified TCP gets busted now. The problem is that when we propose wind; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00142.html (14,240 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 20:40:34 +0100; If a firewall strips the window scaling option in both directions, then window scaling is disabled (RFC 1323 section 2.2). Are you saying there are broken firewalls which strip TCP options in one dir; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00143.html (11,014 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: phen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:00:07 -0700; Stephen Hemminger wrote: Recent TCP changes exposed the problem that there ar lots of really broken firewalls that strip or alter TCP options. We should not be accepting of this situation, surely. I; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00144.html (13,127 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:05:49 -0700; It appears so.; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00145.html (11,519 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: vedita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:12:35 -0700; It is this specific case: 1) SYN packet contains window scale option of ZERO. This says two things, that the system will use a window scale of ZERO and that it SUPPORTS send and receive window scalin; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00146.html (12,833 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: en Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:16:17 -0700; I totally agree with Nivedita, and that's why I'm not going to apply Stephen's patch. That's correct. If the SYN contains a window scale option, this tells the SYN+ACK sending side that both receive; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00147.html (13,043 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: avid S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:17:31 -0700; I totally agree, and that's why the sysctl is there for people to tweak as they desire. Jan, any particular reason you removed so much stuff (in particular netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx) from the CC: list in yo; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00148.html (11,999 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: avid S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:26:15 -0400; It's been a while since I used a 1460 MTU for PPTP over DSL, but unless OSDN got a clue recently, their firewalls drop the ICMP for PMTU discovery. Does anyone have a tool that exercises a bunch of T; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00150.html (12,814 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:28:22 -0700; Ok, this is a possibility. And why it breaks is that if the ACK for the SYN+ACK comes back, the SYN+ACK sender can only assume that the window scale was accepted. Stephen, do you have a trace showing; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00151.html (11,293 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: +challenge-response@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:31:46 -0700; The point is we are sending a bigger window scale then we need to. The maximum receive window is limited by tcp_rmem[2], so we only need to allow that much. Having a different sysctl just for that is; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00152.html (13,046 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: d S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:24:26 -0700; Inaccurate analysis Stephen. If the window option is edited out from the SYN by the firewall, it is impossible for the receiving system to respond with any window scaling option in the SYN+ACK packet; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00153.html (12,515 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: avid S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:33:43 -0700; It's only going to paper over this problem, because a window scale of 2 still gets edited by the firewalls yet doesn't cause the kind of damage 7 does. Also, using a value of 7 is very safe, because; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00155.html (11,877 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: avid S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:36:41 -0700; No, I don't have a br0ken firewall here. I can get out fine. When I setup with same kernel as packages.gentoo.org, it works fine as well.; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00156.html (12,085 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: d S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:35:59 -0700; Therefore we do not know which of the following two it really is: 1) window scale option being stripped from SYN+ACK 2) non-zero window option being patched into a zero window scale option The trace; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00157.html (12,069 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:54:25 -0400; By recruiting someone with enough of a technology clue to scroll to the bottom of the message and read: "To unsubscribe from ...." David p.s. and I wonder why I have so little faith in marketing and; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00159.html (10,597 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: t Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:55:12 -0400 (EDT); Another bit to addr to the firewall / window scale mess: I remember from a while ago that the Cisco PIX firewalls would not allow a window scale of greater than 8. I don't know if they've fixed this; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00168.html (9,895 bytes)
17. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:49:07 -0700; SWS avoidance makes us not send packets. See this quote in an email from John Heffner the other week: == To elaborate on my earlier mail. my hypothesis is that somehow the web server beleives that we; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00169.html (12,253 bytes)
18. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author:; Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:50:13 -0700; In what manner did it deal with > 8 window scales? By rewriting the option or deleting the option entirely from the SYN or SYN+ACK packets?; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00171.html (10,431 bytes)
19. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:19:25 +0200; so this should fix the issues? can you also tell me why this suddenly happend? that would make me a real happy man; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00175.html (12,197 bytes)
20. Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:44:53 +0200; Not true - the outgoing SYN packet had window scale 7, when it was sent. The SYN|ACK had window scale 0, when received by the initiating system. Also - even if the remote were to assume a 47 byte win; /archives/netdev/2004-07/msg00176.html (12,456 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]