[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openssh-unix-dev
Subject:    Re: Frequent "Connection reset by peer"
From:       "Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET" <ml () t-b-o-h ! net>
Date:       2008-01-31 19:38:48
Message-ID: 200801311938.m0VJcmie070740 () himinbjorg ! tucs-beachin-obx-house ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> 
> On 2008-01-31 13:44, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> > 	But would the device have sent a RST if it received a fragment
> > it couldn't route? I'm getting an actual RST from the router on the other
> > end of a WDS link towards the far end laptop.
> 
> Some versions of Linux wrongly generate an RST in response to a bad TCP 
> checksum. (Wrongly because the bad checksum is telling you you can't 
> trust the TCP header and payload, so why generate an RST using values 
> from the header?) I've had problems in the past with simply bad cabling 
> exercising this bug.
> 
	But would it generate the RST *FORWARD* or *BACKWARD*? 
So generally if .1 sends a packet through .2 which is WDS'd
to .5 for .6 ... If .1 or .2 forwarded/created a bad packet
destined for .6, would .5 deliver the RST to .1/.2 or to
.6? My situation is .1 sends, through .2 (Ethernet input,
WDS/radio output) to .5 (radio/WDS input, ethernet output)
for .6. 

	.5 sends the RST to .6. I've checked the checksums
I can capture off .6 for checksum issues, none were marked
that way.

	I'll swap out the far side cable to see if it helps.

			Thanks, Tuc
_______________________________________________
openssh-unix-dev mailing list
openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org
https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]