From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun  2 09:28:53 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 112D416A4CE; Wed,  2 Jun 2004 09:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.atlantis.dp.ua (smtp.atlantis.dp.ua [193.108.46.231])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3F04643D41; Wed,  2 Jun 2004 09:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua)
Received: from smtp.atlantis.dp.ua (smtp.atlantis.dp.ua [193.108.46.231])
	by smtp.atlantis.dp.ua (8.12.6p2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i52GScEw065803;
	Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:28:38 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:28:38 +0300 (EEST)
From: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua>
To: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040602151057.GA39564@pit.databus.com>
Message-ID: <20040602185254.C39863@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua>
References: <20040602093940.N99493@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua>
 <40BDAEEF.2AECC3F0@freebsd.org> <20040602151057.GA39564@pit.databus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
cc: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 hurts
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:28:53 -0000


Hello!

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Barney Wolff wrote:
> Is the problem that the two systems have different ideas of MSL?

 I haven't changed default

net.inet.tcp.msl: 30000

on server. Note that on client side, connection never goes to TIME WAIT,
because during active FTP server side closes data connection (see RFC793,
figure 6), so it goes down-left on diagram from ESTAB state through TIME WAIT
state; but client side receives this first FIN and goes down-right on diagram
through CLOSE WAIT and LAST-ACK states. So MSL on client side is actually N/A
in this case. We have asymmetry here: client has already forgot about previous
usage of data port, but server must remember about it during 2*MSL according
to RFC793.

Sincerely, Dmitry
-- 
Atlantis ISP, System Administrator
e-mail:  dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua
nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE