Messages in this thread | | | From | Adam Denenberg <> | Subject | Re: bind() udp behavior 2.6.8.1 | Date | Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:24:59 -0500 |
| |
I disagree. The linux server should be using unique Transaction ID's in the dns header for each unique dns request. Otherwise there is no way to distinguish them (same A record request). Of course the firewall is going to drop a reply that it thinks it already saw a reply for 30ms ago.
This appears to be a bug in the way glibc is handling things but i cannot be sure. That is the goal of my investigation.
adam
Please CC me i am not on the list.
On Dec 15, 2004, at 2:07 PM, Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:16:02AM -0500, Adam Denenberg wrote: >> the Firewall from distinguishing unique dns requests. It sees a >> second >> DNS request come from the linux server with the _same_ transaction ID >> in >> the UDP header as it is marking that session closed since it already >> saw >> the reply successfully. So for example the linux server is making a >> dns > > Stupid guess here, > > The reply got dropped after it passed your firewall and before it > reached the linux server. What you are seeing is simply a retransmit > which would also have happened if the original request got lost, or if > the reply was dropped before it reached your firewall, in which case > the > firewall probably would have forwarded the retransmitted request > without > a problem. > > I would open the window before you throw the piece of garbage out. > > Jan > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |