Messages in this thread | | | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Date | Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:23:44 -0700 | Subject | Re: [regression] TCP_MD5SIG on established sockets |
| |
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:17 PM Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: > > ----- On Jun 30, 2020, at 4:56 PM, Eric Dumazet edumazet@google.com wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > >> > >> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> > >> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:39:27 -0700 > >> > >> > The (C) & (B) case are certainly doable. > >> > > >> > A) case is more complex, I have no idea of breakages of various TCP > >> > stacks if a flow got SACK > >> > at some point (in 3WHS) but suddenly becomes Reno. > >> > >> I agree that C and B are the easiest to implement without having to > >> add complicated code to handle various negotiated TCP option > >> scenerios. > >> > >> It does seem to be that some entities do A, or did I misread your > >> behavioral analysis of various implementations Mathieu? > >> > >> Thanks. > > > > Yes, another question about Mathieu cases is do determine the behavior > > of all these stacks vs : > > SACK option > > TCP TS option. > > I will ask my customer's networking team to investigate these behaviors, > which will allow me to prepare a thorough reply to the questions raised > by Eric and David. I expect to have an answer within 2-3 weeks at most. > > Thank you!
Great, I am working on adding back support for (B) & (C) by the end of this week.
| |