From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:35:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:35:14 -0500 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:11147 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:35:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:17:36 -0800 Message-Id: <200101082117.NAA21459@pizda.ninka.net> From: "David S. Miller" To: mhvl@linuxia.ih.lucent.com CC: clubneon@hereintown.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3A5A3027.11A56673@linuxia.ih.lucent.com> (mhvl@linuxia.ih.lucent.com) Subject: Re: Delay in authentication. In-Reply-To: <3A5A3027.11A56673@linuxia.ih.lucent.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:24:55 -0600 From: "M.H.VanLeeuwen" Was this behavior intentionally changed and why? Looks like 2.2.X gives ECONNREFUSED, but 2.4.X doesn't and times out. It was intentionally changed because there is no way for the "ICMP port unreachable" message coming back to be uniquely matched to that UDP socket. It can reset sockets illegally in high load scenerios. Solaris and other systems act identically. Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/