Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 10:51:56 +1000 From: "Jarrod Lee Petz" <jlpetz@internode.on.net> To: "'Doug Barton'" <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: RE: TIME_WAIT Assassination in FreeBSD??? Message-ID: <001701cc69d3$aea9a0b0$0bfce210$@internode.on.net> In-Reply-To: <4E616D6E.4030903@FreeBSD.org> References: <007301cc6979$a690f9a0$f3b2ece0$@internode.on.net> <4E616D6E.4030903@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Doug, The problem itself is currently seen on AIX yes. However, I am more after. 1. Insight into the TCP/IP stack. Is it broken here? 2. Insight into whether active FTP is flawed in design? Or perhaps just this implementation of it? Solution is to use passive FTP which seems fine. 3. Would FreeBSD have the same issue? According to RFC6056, FreeBSD uses "algorithm 1" which "is biased towards the first available port after a sequence of unavailable port numbers." So unless it does something fancy like TIME_WAIT assassination. I think it would behave similar to AIX when doing multiple active FTP data connections & encounter the same issue. Regards Jarrod -----Original Message----- From: Doug Barton [mailto:dougb@FreeBSD.org] Sent: Saturday, 3 September 2011 9:58 AM To: petz@nisshoko.net Cc: Jarrod Lee Petz; freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: TIME_WAIT Assassination in FreeBSD??? On 09/02/2011 07:07, Jarrod Lee Petz wrote: > We have an AIX system It's not clear to me what the FreeBSD related problem is here. -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001701cc69d3$aea9a0b0$0bfce210$>