From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 24 18:12:16 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920421065670 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:12:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@jellydonut.org) Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com (mail-bw0-f227.google.com [209.85.218.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5868FC20 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:12:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so1447133bwz.43 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:12:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.24.87 with SMTP id u23mr1478817fab.81.1253814646776; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <86d45g4ffl.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <86d45g4ffl.fsf@ds4.des.no> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:50:46 -0400 Message-ID: <1de79840909241050h6b3233dcgbd07386d716dac7f@mail.gmail.com> From: Michael Proto To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=F8rgrav?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Confused tcpdump X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:12:16 -0000 2009/9/24 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav : > 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