Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Why redundant frames?
From: "George Peaslee" <gpeaslee () verizon net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:04:16 -0500
A couple things come to mind. In your TCP options field of the handshake, what is the Maximum segment size? Is there a device that is setting a smaller MTU in the path such as a router? (Path MTU Discovery) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Anecito" <adanecito () yahoo com> To: "Community support list for Wireshark" <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] Why redundant frames? Hi All, More info. Each frame in wireshark is listed as having 539bytes captured and on the wire. My MTU is set to 1500 byte packets so if this is a fragmentation of data why would the data be split into two frames when one should have at least used two packets within a frame? Sorry for the questions I am a newbe to this level of analysis. Many Thanks, -Tony --- On Wed, 10/14/09, Tony Anecito <adanecito () yahoo com> wrote:
From: Tony Anecito <adanecito () yahoo com> Subject: [Wireshark-users] Why redundant frames? To: "Wireshark Users" <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 9:03 AM Hi All, I am analyzing some traffic for my app using Wireshark. I captured a single request from my app to a web service and noticed that there appeared to be a redundancy in two frames. I am seeing something called a "TCP segment of a reassembled PDU" and then my Post being sent from the source (my client app) to the destination (web service). And the same sequence coming back from the destination (web service) to the source (my client app). Does anyone know why the TCP segment of a reassembled PDU is be sent and then coming back? It looks like it contains the same data or payload. Thanks, -Tony ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Why redundant frames? Tony Anecito (Oct 14)
- Re: Why redundant frames? Tony Anecito (Oct 14)
- Re: Why redundant frames? George Peaslee (Oct 14)
- Re: Why redundant frames? Tony Anecito (Oct 14)
- Re: Why redundant frames? George Peaslee (Oct 14)
- Re: Why redundant frames? Tony Anecito (Oct 14)