Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 23:08:59 -0400 From: Barney Wolff <barney@pit.databus.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: connect(2) behavior with unreacheable hosts Message-ID: <20030413030859.GB64896@pit.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <20030412.210042.104160257.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <109.225ca595.2bc723f2@aol.com> <20030412.204912.76964336.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030412.210042.104160257.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 09:00:42PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > I just read the rest of the thread: > > 1) route loops don't matter. connect should timeout after a while, > and on stable it is like 75 seconds. loop elsewhere doesn't matter > because it is the same thing as a black hole. You don't get the > handshake back, you timeout. Doesn't matter why (and the sending > host can't tell them apart). > 2) This is clearly TCP. > 3) telnet 1.2.3.4 does the following bogusly: > Trying 1.2.3.4... > Connected to 1.2.3.4. > Escape character is '^]'. > Connection closed by foreign host. > > All the lines are printed in < 1s. > > However, this may be because I live behind a NAT box. Any chance you > did your testing in a similar environment, which is causing your > confusion. On my non-NAT'd boxes, this works as expected. The catch is that connecting to 1.2.3.4 behaves differently depending on whether: 1. ICMP host-unreach 2. Nothing at all 3. ICMP time-exceeded comes back. The first two cases are handled correctly, the third is not. -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030413030859.GB64896>