Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:50:46 -0400 From: Michael Proto <mike@jellydonut.org> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Confused tcpdump Message-ID: <1de79840909241050h6b3233dcgbd07386d716dac7f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <86d45g4ffl.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <86d45g4ffl.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/9/24 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no>: > 15:50:42.622040 IP 10.0.0.10.871009576 > 10.0.0.4.2049: 192 lookup [|nfs] > 15:50:42.622386 IP 10.0.0.4.2049 > 10.0.0.10.871009576: reply ok 236 look= up [|nfs] > > I'm pretty sure 871009576 is not a valid port number... > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " > I've noticed this behavior since at least 4.3 as well, with the source port being some obscenely-high number, when examining UDP-based NFS traffic with tcpdump (32bit). Not chiming-in on validity one way or the other as its never really bothered my troubleshooting to-date, but it has been there quite a while. -Proto
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1de79840909241050h6b3233dcgbd07386d716dac7f>