Up |
|
|
  |
Author: erik quanstromerik quanstrom Date: Apr 15, 2008 10:20
does anyone know why telnet has trouble with this?
; echo godaddy.com|telnet -nr /net.alt/tcp! whois.godaddy.com!43
connected to /net.alt/tcp! whois.godaddy.com!43 on /net.alt/tcp/12
;
from a similarly-connected linux machine, linux telnet returns a
lengthy answer.
- erik
|
| |
|
| | 42 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Russ CoxRuss Cox Date: Apr 16, 2008 06:35
> does anyone know why telnet has trouble with this?
>
> ; echo godaddy.com|telnet -nr /net.alt/tcp! whois.godaddy.com!43
> connected to /net.alt/tcp! whois.godaddy.com!43 on /net.alt/tcp/12
> ;
>
> from a similarly-connected linux machine, linux telnet returns a
> lengthy answer.
It's not telnet's fault. It's a TCP bug.
Here's a trace on Linux. Notice that godaddy's SYN|ACK packet (34822ms)
advertises a zero-length receive window, so Linux has to wait
until it gets an ACK to its ACK to open the window (34899ms)
before it sends (34900ms).
# /usr/local/plan9/bin/snoopy -f 'tcp(sd=43)' eth0
after optimize: ether(ip(tcp(sd = 43)))
034744 ms
ether(s=000feafc0dbe d=00095bdb3254 pr=0800 ln=74)
ip(s= 192.168.0.99 d...
|
| Show full article (3.90Kb) |
|
| | 41 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Charles ForsythCharles Forsyth Date: Apr 16, 2008 06:45
> Plan 9 ignores the zero length window and sends a single byte (2456ms),
> causing godaddy to hang up (2493ms).
it is probing the zero window (rfc793, section 3.7)
|
| |
| 40 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Michaelian EnnisMichaelian Ennis Date: Apr 16, 2008 09:57
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Charles Forsyth terzarima.net> wrote:
>> Plan 9 ignores the zero length window and sends a single byte (2456ms),
>> causing godaddy to hang up (2493ms).
>
> it is probing the zero window (rfc793, section 3.7)
Not that I think that fingerprinting is definitive but nmap thinks
whois at godaddy is running:
Captor embedded, QNX 4.X
Ian
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: erik quanstromerik quanstrom Date: Apr 16, 2008 11:41
>> Plan 9 ignores the zero length window and sends a single byte (2456ms),
>> causing godaddy to hang up (2493ms).
>
> it is probing the zero window (rfc793, section 3.7)
for those, like me, who have not committed 793 to memory:
"When the receiving TCP has a zero window and a segment arrives it must
still send n acknowledgment show its next expected sequence number
and current window (zero).
p. 41 near the bottom. looks like godaddy's tcp has the bug.
- erik
|
| |
| 38 Comments |
|
  |
Author: ron minnichron minnich Date: Apr 16, 2008 12:09
This is really an interesting discussion -- anybody think it could go
on the wiki? I enjoyed it anyway :-)
A good example of how correct behaviour (in this case Plan 9) can get
you spanked.
ron
|
| |
| 37 Comments |
|
  |
Date: Apr 16, 2008 12:51
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:04:23 PDT "ron minnich" gmail.com> wrote:
> This is really an interesting discussion -- anybody think it could go
> on the wiki? I enjoyed it anyway :-)
>
> A good example of how correct behaviour (in this case Plan 9) can get
> you spanked.
Er... "correct" seems a bit strong. Why is Plan9 sending one
byte of data when it knows the receiver's window is closed?
|
| Show full article (1.56Kb) |
| 36 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Tim WiessTim Wiess Date: Apr 16, 2008 13:28
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:04:23 PDT "ron minnich" gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is really an interesting discussion -- anybody think it could go
>> on the wiki? I enjoyed it anyway :-)
>>
>> A good example of how correct behaviour (in this case Plan 9) can get
>> you spanked.
>
> Er... "correct" seems a bit strong. Why is Plan9 sending one
> byte of data when it knows the receiver's window is closed?
>
Lookup TCP persist timer and window probes.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Charles ForsythCharles Forsyth Date: Apr 16, 2008 13:47
> Er... "correct" seems a bit strong. Why is Plan9 sending one
> byte of data when it knows the receiver's window is closed?
read the section of the rfc i mentioned earlier. it probably ought to probe
only after a retransmission timeout period, but that's not a predetermined value,
and can be short. very short. and plan 9 is positively curt, so it's just
typical that others should then complain.
|
| |
| 34 Comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: Taj KhattraTaj Khattra Date: Apr 16, 2008 14:46
> read the section of the rfc i mentioned earlier. it probably ought to probe
> only after a retransmission timeout period
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
|