Re: Socket weirdness
- From: "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:32:24 -0400
| Understood now. RST is sent; ACK doesn't matter since it would be in the
same header anyway. What's important is the RST (and ACK
| probably shouldn't be set, for that matter)
Back to the beginning I think.. RST is set, not sent independently AFAICT.
There can be no RST set unless it is set in an ACK packet of the client's
first send (in this case). If the client never sends anything after server
did close, client would never see the RST - which now makes sense.
Example:
1) Server closes Receive.
2) Client does a send. Does not block on either Send or BeginSend.
2a) Client may do another send as RST has not been "seen" yet by the
client.
4) Client gets the ACK of first Send which has the RST set in the header.
5) Bang. Future Sends/Receive at client will error because server's RST has
been processed.
--wjs
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Dave Sexton
- Re: Socket weirdness
- References:
- Socket weirdness
- From: William Stacey [MVP]
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Dave Sexton
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: William Stacey [MVP]
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Dave Sexton
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: William Stacey [MVP]
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Alan J. McFarlane
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Dave Sexton
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: William Stacey [MVP]
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Dave Sexton
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: William Stacey [MVP]
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Dave Sexton
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Alan J. McFarlane
- Re: Socket weirdness
- From: Dave Sexton
- Socket weirdness
- Prev by Date: Re: reflection for plug in
- Next by Date: Re: Exclude a project from a multi-project solution build
- Previous by thread: Re: Socket weirdness
- Next by thread: Re: Socket weirdness
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading