I can confirm the patch works for the RST case I checked.
Thanks!
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 3:37 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/9/19 3:22 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/9/19 2:33 PM, Marek Majkowski wrote:
> >> Ha, thanks. I missed that.
> >>
> >> There is a caveat though. I don't th
On 7/9/19 3:22 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/19 2:33 PM, Marek Majkowski wrote:
>> Ha, thanks. I missed that.
>>
>> There is a caveat though. I don't think it's working as intended...
>
>
> Note that my commit really took a look at a fraction of the cases ;)
>
> commit 323a53c41292a0
On 7/9/19 2:33 PM, Marek Majkowski wrote:
> Ha, thanks. I missed that.
>
> There is a caveat though. I don't think it's working as intended...
Note that my commit really took a look at a fraction of the cases ;)
commit 323a53c41292a0d7efc8748856c623324c8d7c21
ipv6: tcp: enable flowlabel
Ha, thanks. I missed that.
There is a caveat though. I don't think it's working as intended...
Running my script:
$ sysctl -w net.ipv6.flowlabel_reflect=3
$ tail reflect.py
cd2.close()
cd.send(b"a")
$ python3 reflect.py
IP6 (flowlabel 0xf2927, hlim 64) ::1.1235 > ::1.60246: Flags [F.]
IP6 (flow
On 7/9/19 1:10 PM, Marek Majkowski wrote:
> Morning,
>
> I'm experimenting with flow label reflection from a server point of
> view. I'm able to get it working in both supported ways:
>
> (a) per-socket with flow manager IPV6_FL_F_REFLECT and flowlabel_consistency=0
>
> (b) with global flowla
Morning,
I'm experimenting with flow label reflection from a server point of
view. I'm able to get it working in both supported ways:
(a) per-socket with flow manager IPV6_FL_F_REFLECT and flowlabel_consistency=0
(b) with global flowlabel_reflect sysctl
However, I was surprised to see that RST
