> On 18 Jan 2017, at 07:01, Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
but this would mean that Linux only supports the peer skipping some small number of TSN's.
Isn't this a limitation of the implementation?
Best regards
Michael
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
--
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
