Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: non-piggy-backed ACK with total IP length = 52
From: Andrej van der Zee <andrejvanderzee () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:11:21 +0900
Hi Guy, Thanks for your reply.
It's saying "I saw the bytes with sequence numbers from 533 through 1129" (i.e., in the half-open interval [533, 1130)), presumably because there are some bytes with sequence numbers preceding 553 that it hasn't yet acknowledged because it hasn't seen yet - it wants to have the other end re-transmit those bytes without having it also retransmit bytes 533-1129, which I suspect were the retransmitted bytes.
Actually, the weird thing is that the "normal" ACK Number in this packet is 1130 and there are no "holes" in the acked data. The RFC sais: "The SACK option does not change the meaning of the Acknowledgement Number field" So the SACK option in this packet seems to have no affect whatsoever and I wonder why it is sent then. Bad TCP implementation (Windows 7)? Attached you find the pcap-file (packet 11 is the SACK-packet). Cheers, Andrej ___________________________________________________________________________ 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:
- non-piggy-backed ACK with total IP length = 52 Andrej van der Zee (Feb 26)
- Re: non-piggy-backed ACK with total IP length = 52 Guy Harris (Feb 26)
- Re: non-piggy-backed ACK with total IP length = 52 Andrej van der Zee (Feb 27)
- Re: non-piggy-backed ACK with total IP length = 52 Andrej van der Zee (Feb 27)
- Re: non-piggy-backed ACK with total IP length = 52 Sake Blok (Feb 27)
- Re: non-piggy-backed ACK with total IP length = 52 Andrej van der Zee (Feb 27)
- Re: non-piggy-backed ACK with total IP length = 52 Andrej van der Zee (Feb 27)
- Re: non-piggy-backed ACK with total IP length = 52 Guy Harris (Feb 26)