[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: pps or other unknown upper bound?

On 11/17/05, Jon Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 03:21:01PM +0000, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>> Let me apologize in advance: when all you've got is a hammer,
>> everything looks like a nail.  I keep harping on the 2MSL TCP
>> rule -- reuse of source IP/port dest IP/port quad.  So,
>> could be a TCP(ish) issue, although I don't feel entirely
>> qualified to claim this.
I think this is a key point -- the client is removing the quad from
TIME-WAIT and sees it as eligible for reuse, meanwhile the firewall
and/or the server still has this closed session state table entry in a
*WAIT state.
> the client sends 3 syns in rapid succession from this source port
> and the firewall doesn't allow them through.
. . .
> Now my problem is figuring out how to deal with this situation.
> I believe the firewall is doing what it should but others may argue it
> is being too strict.  I could also just widen the defaut port range on
> the clients, but that doesn't strike me as the best solution.
If 'pf' is blocking new SYN packets because of an existing FIN-WAIT
table entry for the same quad, that may be proper behavior, yet "too
My TCP is a little rusty, but would it be reasonable for the
"aggressive" optimization to not only adjust timeouts, but also change
engine behavior so a newly received SYN, if it matches a state entry
which is in FIN-WAIT or CLOSED state, to reset that state entry back
into "first"?
Kevin Kadow