IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] NAT64: clarification on RST handling in V6 FIN RCV state

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 09 March 2012 06:44 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70AB21F8624 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:44:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MyoZH1S0cJbd for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:44:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F398321F85A1 for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:44:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=940; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1331275484; x=1332485084; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=X4Jp35DxxLgvo0zZrQ24WfdK342I3L7PVnRCJDyyGkI=; b=kIBbYNjzLo5CrgGlSu6u1LPSiC7pH9UPQsjtgoCCT89FJjVB6Vti3+Tb Q919/okAsNBXrKq+9q1BrGYrqMobm1lCGGOfFbNXlLDh5r8TRgE+r9cR3 tV4A0IejqhJn94CvJ9IISTyF8mo+uJOvgC10c7NiykGNGOQZiag36S3c1 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqMFAGemWU+rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABDszKBeIEHggoBAQEDARIBFBM/BQsLDgouVwY1h2MEAQubMQGeVo9zYwSIUYx3hWaKNIJy
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,556,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="35312057"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2012 06:44:43 +0000
Received: from dhcp-64-104-shinjuku-wlan-5-136.cisco.com (dhcp-64-104-shinjuku-wlan-5-136.cisco.com [64.104.5.136]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q296igtg022620; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 06:44:42 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by dhcp-64-104-shinjuku-wlan-5-136.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:44:44 +0900
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by dhcp-64-104-shinjuku-wlan-5-136.cisco.com on Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:44:44 +0900
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F599E5C.5090500@mti-systems.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:44:31 +0900
Message-Id: <F4CB9073-4671-496B-BBAB-048FFB14387D@cisco.com>
References: <EF5EF2B13ED09B4F871D9A0DBCA463C21C2CC1F6@TK5EX14MBXC298.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4F585585.9000706@it.uc3m.es> <A89221DA-7F68-4EB2-AA7E-17DA3732937C@cisco.com> <4F599E5C.5090500@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Murari Sridharan <muraris@microsoft.com>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] NAT64: clarification on RST handling in V6 FIN RCV state
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 06:44:44 -0000

On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:

> On 3/8/2012 5:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> I didn't find a FIN (F without Ack) in any of the examples.
> 
> Since FIN is set on packets coming from a synchronized state,
> I'm not sure why you would expect to find a bare one without
> ACK set as well?  

You missed it. The sequence is FIN, FIN-ACK, ACK. 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793, and look at the transitions 
	SYN RCVD -> FIN-WAIT-1
	ESTAB    -> FIN-WAIT-1
        ESTAB    -> CLOSE WAIT

What's there is FIN-ACK, RST. No FIN. I could understand FIN, FIN-ACK, RST (the guy sends FIN and closes the socket instantly), whether or not I agree with it. No FIN - I'm trying to figure out why there was a FIN-ACK.

> It should fail validity tests on reception
> and be ignored if ACK isn't set.  Any stack generating those
> would be broken, I believe.
> 
> -- 
> Wes Eddy
> MTI Systems

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email