From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752435AbbAZB1P (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:27:15 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com ([209.85.217.169]:40710 "EHLO mail-lb0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750902AbbAZB1M (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:27:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <54C29B82.7090502@redhat.com> References: <54C23581.9060809@redhat.com> <54C27137.5010405@gmail.com> <54C2807E.8080607@redhat.com> <8BBFBEE6-FA34-4190-BFCB-AB6BEC093774@fh-muenster.de> <54C29B82.7090502@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:27:10 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Question on SCTP ABORT chunk is generated when the association_max_retrans is reached From: Sun Paul To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Michael Tuexen , Vlad Yasevich , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi sorry for the late reply. I am a bit confused. when side-A sends a request to side-B, and side-B return the response, but side-A keep re-transmit the same request to side-B, why side-B needed to send a ABORT to side-A? If it is used in order to reestablish the connection, shoudn't it should be side-A to send ABORT instead? - PS On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 01/23/2015 07:36 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote: > ... >> >> Yepp. It might not reach the peer or it might. If it does it helps >> to keep the states in sync. If it doesn't it sometimes helps in >> analysing tracefiles. In BSD, we also send it. It is not required, >> doesn't harm and is useful in some cases... > > > Ok, as the TCB is destroyed in any case, should be fine then. > > Thanks, > Daniel