From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754523AbbAZNbJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:31:09 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53081 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750830AbbAZNbH (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:31:07 -0500
Message-ID: <54C6418E.1010408@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:30:54 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sun Paul <paulrbk@gmail.com>
CC: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
        Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>,
        Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question on SCTP ABORT chunk is generated when the association_max_retrans
 is reached
References: <CAFXGftKp3=OfjkCVBuR-zM3+uZ42Sk_9i2UjAHBNnbX=hQJwpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFXGft+fwo=8LJEG7h6uOpGciSo5f_dXjSx3sn67RZZp7jsYHw@mail.gmail.com> <54C23581.9060809@redhat.com> <54C27137.5010405@gmail.com> <54C2807E.8080607@redhat.com> <8BBFBEE6-FA34-4190-BFCB-AB6BEC093774@fh-muenster.de> <54C29B82.7090502@redhat.com> <CAFXGft+XZCmhuwj2QTCiU0MD10Uo+WZ3WCC+rfbsd_Lxbhk3iw@mail.gmail.com> <54C62912.3040401@gmail.com> <CAFXGftJNZ48Qe4DLgf5TPBvNCnUH8wxon9+b3_i_GWVYqnphhg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFXGftJNZ48Qe4DLgf5TPBvNCnUH8wxon9+b3_i_GWVYqnphhg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 01/26/2015 02:17 PM, Sun Paul wrote:
> When an ABORT is sent to side-A, side-A INIT a new connection again.

Even if the ABORT is not being sent, the peer (the one who would send
his ABORT) closes the TCB from his side silently then. Any messages that
would afterwards arrive on this dead connection would be answered with
an oob ABORT just as well. I'm still missing the bigger picture on your
use-case scenario here, I guess ... why is the recommended rtx limit not
sufficient?