On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 02:07:52PM +0100, Julian Cordes wrote:
>> When a FORWARD-TSN-Chunk with a relative high cum-tsn-value is injected
>> then the linux kernel ignores this valid FORWARD-TSN-Chunk.
>> It should instead send an SACK-Chunk where the cum_tsn is equal to the
>> cum_tsn specified in the FORWARD-TSN.
>
> You mean, with the cum_tsn specified on the *injected* FORWARD-TSN.
> Is that so?
from the test script
+0.0 < sctp: FORWARD_TSN[cum_tsn=99999, ids=[{1, 1}]]
I think so.
But 99999 is so high relative to the base_tsn of tsnmap,
it overflowed tsnmap, such a big gap is disallowed in linux
sctp. it has to drop this packet.
/* Verify that we can hold this TSN and that it will not
* overlfow our map
*/
if (!TSN_lt(tsn, map->base_tsn + SCTP_TSN_MAP_SIZE))
return -1;
Hi, Julian, maybe you can improve your script by using a lower
value for linux.
>
>>
>> Testscript available at:
>> https://github.com/nplab/PR_SCTP_Testsuite/blob/master/forward-tsn/receiver-side-implementation/receiver-side-implementation-11.pkt
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
