RE: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

"Caitlin Bestler" <> Tue, 30 October 2007 19:06 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImwPc-00067Y-Ot; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:06:04 -0400
Received: from tcpm by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ImwPb-00067D-GT for; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:06:03 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImwPY-0005zS-Nm for; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:06:00 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImwPX-0005tj-JI for; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:05:59 -0400
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:05:57 -0400
Message-ID: <78C9135A3D2ECE4B8162EBDCE82CAD7702765475@nekter>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO
Thread-Index: AcgbGIDttfCXJvviRiCt+rZARIo9ygADtkAg
References: <> <><78C9135A3D2ECE4B8162EBDCE82CAD77026345DE@nekter><><> <> <78C9135A3D2ECE4B8162EBDCE82CAD77027653E9@nekter> <>
From: Caitlin Bestler <>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Joe Touch wrote:


> If this is the only option that has this property (silent source
> assertion of a SYN option), then the appropriate solution is to
> prohibit it from SYNs, IMO.

> Joe

If you're allocated a "full" TCB based on only an unconfirmed SYN
then you probably would not mind allocating one that is UTO capable.

So I don't really see any harm in prohibiting it from the SYN, unless
it's presence there is needed to keep connection tracking middleboxes
happy or somesuch. The passive endpoint certainly does not need it
to be in the SYN. Any timeouts before the connection is fully
are going to have their own logic anyway.

tcpm mailing list