From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 16 19:44:56 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA27626 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.96.120]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA27621 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 19:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msmith@localhost by genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) id MAA05269; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:06:28 +0930 From: Michael Smith Message-Id: <199604170236.MAA05269@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: TCP Window question To: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:06:28 +0930 (CST) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199604162033.QAA14318@etinc.com> from "dennis" at Apr 16, 96 04:33:06 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk dennis stands accused of saying: > > Now for the more important question: Does anyone care to hazzard a guess as > to the pct of "broken" implementations that will reject (or choke on) "out > of sequence" packets? *laugh* That depends on the market you're looking at. If you're referring to Unix stacks, almost zero, and you'd have to go back a long way to find them. The out-of-order reassembly handling is necessary to handle lost or corrupted packets. Any system that choked on such a circumstance would do so as soon as an ethernet collision killed a passing TCP fragment. > Dennis -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control (ph/fax) +61-8-267-3039 [[ ]] Collector of old Unix hardware. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[