From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 4 08:21:56 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF151065672; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:21:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (unknown [IPv6:2607:f678:1010::34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2554C8FC17; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:21:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (66@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id q348Lt3c063260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:21:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.14.2/Submit) with UUCP id q348LtMd063259; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:21:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from fbsd81 ([192.168.200.81]) by pluto.rain.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-pluto-M2060407) id AA26143; Wed, 4 Apr 12 01:04:31 PDT Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:03:35 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: andre@freebsd.org Message-Id: <4f7c62c7.MUlfd0e/uNQsAVZG%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <4F75C1A3.4030401@freebsd.org> <4F75D9ED.7080707@freebsd.org> <4F780373.6030107@freebsd.org> <4F7AFEEF.60708@freebsd.org> <4F7B1981.1050009@freebsd.org> <4F7B3098.3090901@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4F7B3098.3090901@freebsd.org> User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: darrenr@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD TCP ignores zero window size 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: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:21:56 -0000 Andre Oppermann wrote: > The other side is retransmitting data we have already received > and acknowledged ... That behavior is totally non-compliant. Any chance our ack of that data got dropped/lost enroute, and the other side is resending after timing out?