[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
job screening question
- Subject: job screening question
- From: jason at thebaughers.com (Jason Baugher)
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:51:34 -0500
- In-reply-to: <CAP-guGUTE-x8xqSsN9=w55zX+OEgi9WfDgYnp-yuKFCrD3w29w@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAP-guGXoKDfpC_pwaQVxwjMoG29_bmJEM0Bs3KGwjXX-K0_BoA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAAf7Uo=HnAbkCgR6Grd5pJLf2STeFah_Lc0RRkod3gUC1VNHtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-guGUTE-x8xqSsN9=w55zX+OEgi9WfDgYnp-yuKFCrD3w29w@mail.gmail.com>
Geez, I'd be happy to find someone with a good attitude, a solid work
ethic, and the desire and aptitude to learn. :)
Jason
On 7/5/2012 5:18 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Derek Andrew <Derek.Andrew at usask.ca> wrote:
>>>> You implement a firewall on which you block all ICMP packets. What
>>>> part of the TCP protocol (not IP in general, TCP specifically)
>>>> malfunctions as a result?
>> Isn't MTU discovery on IP and not TCP?
> If you want to overthink the question, the failure in the TCP protocol
> is that it doesn't adjust the MSS to match the path MTU. It continues
> to rely on the incorrect path MTU estimate, sending too-large packets
> which will never arrive. This happens because TCP doesn't receive a
> notification that the path MTU estimate has changed from the default
> because the lower layer PMTUD algorithm never receives the expected
> ICMP packet.
>
> This is, incidentally, is a detail I'd love for one of the candidates
> to offer in response to that question. Bonus points if you discuss MSS
> clamping and RFC 4821.
>
> The less precise answer, path MTU discovery breaks, is just fine.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
>