Reakce na ICMP port unreachable (IRIX)

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> no yo, rfc1122 sekcia 3.2.2.1:
>>
>>             A transport protocol
>>             that has its own mechanism for notifying the sender that a
>>             port is unreachable (e.g., TCP, which sends RST segments)
>>             MUST nevertheless accept an ICMP Port Unreachable for the
>>             same purpose.

Bohumil Chalupa <bochal at met.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> Teda nevim, jestli se prede mnou smysl neukryva v nejake zaludnosti
> anglictiny - ale tohle prece znamena, ze ten IRIX se chova spatne,
> protoze prestoze TCP "ma svuj vlastni mechanismus, jak upozornit
> odesilatele na nedostupnost portu, _musi_presto_pro_stejny_ucel_
> _akceptovat_ ICMP Port Unreachable". Coz IRIX podle Y.K. nedela.

nie,. chyba bola u mna - zle som si to precital ako MUST not

>>             o    Destination Unreachable -- codes 2-4
>>
>>                  These are hard error conditions, so TCP SHOULD abort
>>                  the connection.
>>
>> co znamena dve veci:
>>
>> 1. RFC1122 si v bodoch 3.2.2.1 a 4.2.3.9 protireci
>> 2. IRIX jednoznacne bod 4.2.3.9 porusuje.
>> 3. ak za budeme drzat fundamentalneho pravidla (be liberal in what you
>>    accept), musi sa bod 4.2.3.9 dodrziavat a 3.2.2.1 nie...

> Z toho mi plyne, ze si body vubec 3.2.2.1 a 4.2.3.9 neprotireci, naopak...
>
> Nechce se mi verit, ze by jak D.L., tak M.U., (ktery ho zde i ocitoval),
> cetli prilis rychle a spatne pochopili citovany bod 3.2.2.1, ale podle
> vseho to tak vypada.

no, stalo sa...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I don't wish to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: Nezelam si na tuto adresu dostavat akukolvek reklamnu postu.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?