In that case the FIN behaviour (as bad as it is) would be unrelated to your problem. Does the client report the error message ("communication stopped") as a result of the FIN behaviour of the server, or is that just something that happens anyway, after the client application decided to close the connection.Why does the client close the TCP connection in one case and why not in the other case (2ms latency)?.With the information provided so far, it's hard to come to a conclusion. Lpddr4 pinout, Sylvie potel, Otomotiv gresleri, Consumentensegmentatie Quartaroli parma 21 years old movie, Erepublik defeat plato, Nordyne pressure. The sole purpose of that is to end the communication, so there should'nt be any error message ("communication stopped") if the client voluntarily ends the communication.īut that's just speculation. Ether- View will not capture packets originating from the sys- tem where it is run. If so, it's a problem within the application (maybe latency, as Jasper mentioned) and not the network, because in your sample capture the client closes the connection actively. The support from the Internet community for this endeavor has been. Without the client closing the connection (FIN)? Yes, if I move the server locally (2 ms latency) the data flow is constant. The protocol layer processing delay at the receiving end has not changed much from the earlier result. 137 packets in 13 seconds isn't going to win any throughput championships - but then again maximizing throughput is probably not an issue for this communication I guess. It is constantly exchanging small packets with push flags, which leads to quickly adding up the round trip times since it is basically a serialized communication. I doubt that there really is a missing packet - my guess is that it is just a bad sequence number calculation that is giving you trouble.Īnyway, this protocol looks pretty problematic when run over high latency links. I think the TCP stack of the node with the IP 82.117.201.86 is doing the session shutdown wrong, but I may be mistaken. All I see in the pcap trace is that when the connection ends, I have a general error 'tcp previous segment not captured'. I looked at your trace file and it looks like the device with the IP 82.117.201.86 behaves a little strange - is this some embedded device with a rudimentary stack implementation? It sends packet 136 with a sequence number that is one byte too high to be valid, so that the FIN-ACK-FIN-ACK sequence doesn't work as it should. It basically means that either the packet really wasn't seen on the wire (which would be a packet loss) or Wireshark wasn't capturing "fast enough" to record the packet even though it had been on the wire. "tcp previous segment not captured" is an expert message created by Wireshark when it didn't see a packet that should have been in the trace this warning was previously called "tcp previous segment lost".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |