On 13 July 2017 at 15:38, Greg Rose wrote:
> On 07/13/2017 11:03 AM, Joe Stringer wrote:
>>
>> On 13 July 2017 at 11:01, Greg Rose wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/13/2017 10:46 AM, Joe Stringer wrote:
On 13 July 2017 at 09:25, Greg Rose wrote:
>
>
> When there is an established c
On 07/13/2017 11:03 AM, Joe Stringer wrote:
On 13 July 2017 at 11:01, Greg Rose wrote:
On 07/13/2017 10:46 AM, Joe Stringer wrote:
On 13 July 2017 at 09:25, Greg Rose wrote:
When there is an established connection in direction A->B, it is
possible to receive a packet on port B which then e
On 13 July 2017 at 11:01, Greg Rose wrote:
> On 07/13/2017 10:46 AM, Joe Stringer wrote:
>>
>> On 13 July 2017 at 09:25, Greg Rose wrote:
>>>
>>> When there is an established connection in direction A->B, it is
>>> possible to receive a packet on port B which then executes
>>> ct(commit,force) wi
On 07/13/2017 10:46 AM, Joe Stringer wrote:
On 13 July 2017 at 09:25, Greg Rose wrote:
When there is an established connection in direction A->B, it is
possible to receive a packet on port B which then executes
ct(commit,force) without first performing ct() - ie, a lookup.
In this case, we woul
On 13 July 2017 at 09:25, Greg Rose wrote:
> When there is an established connection in direction A->B, it is
> possible to receive a packet on port B which then executes
> ct(commit,force) without first performing ct() - ie, a lookup.
> In this case, we would expect that this packet can delete th
