From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 16 08:52:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA09650 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:52:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gvr.gvr.org (gvr.gvr.org [194.151.74.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA09639 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:52:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from guido@gvr.org) Received: (from guido@localhost) by gvr.gvr.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) id RAA06983; Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:52:17 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <19981216175217.A6979@gvr.org> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:52:17 +0100 From: Guido van Rooij To: dg@root.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tcp bug on reeBSD References: <19981216140244.A5966@gvr.org> <199812161500.HAA09803@root.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <199812161500.HAA09803@root.com>; from David Greenman on Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 07:00:57AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > Well, the above shows that the port involved is the FTP control channel, > which gets closed at the end of the session. I think the RST was in response > to your 6 byte PUSHed packet, not your FIN packet. Since the application on > wcarchive already closed it's end of the connection (as evidenced by the > FIN that it sent), there is no longer a recipient of any data that might be > sent to it. It seems to me that the appropriate response in a situation like > this would be to send an RST in response to that data. > Yes, a half-close is a valid mechanism, but you can only send to the side > that hasn't closed yet. Ah..how stupid ;-() I indeed mixed up the server/client here. I;ll look later today exactly what my application (being mirror) wanted to send to the other side because that should not have happened at all. -Guido To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message