Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:53:09 -0700 From: "D. W. Piper" <dwplists@loop.com> To: <cjclark@alum.mit.edu> Cc: <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Another question on IPFW Rule -1 Message-ID: <039301c10fa1$c1e44b40$213cd3cf@loop.com> References: <200105181518.WAA12362@bazooka.cs.ait.ac.th> <046c01c0dfc0$833e7fc0$213cd3cf@loop.com> <03a401c10efb$dd2eda60$213cd3cf@loop.com> <20010717223940.A437@blossom.cjclark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Me: > > Is it significant that it's always "Fragment = 184"? (Is that the > > number of the fragment, or if not what does it mean?) From: "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net> > It's the offset. The data in the fragment should be placed at an > offset of 1472 bytes in the reassembled datagram. This is not a "bogus > frag" as described in the manpage. I think it's probably a runt > packet. Thank you for the response. Um... pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "runt packet"? Does what I've described suggest some kind of problem somewhere on our network, or on the other end? Or is it something that can be safely ignored? Thanks, David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?039301c10fa1$c1e44b40$213cd3cf>