TCP URG point

[Justin Walker]

On Dec 22, 2004, at 13:16, Andre Oppermann wrote:

> Li, Qing wrote:
>> 	It appears the TCP urgent pointer is off by 1.
>> 	In RFC-1122, section 4.2.2.4 on Page 83 describes the
>> 	urgent pointer error in RFC-793.
>> 	The 6.0-CURRENT code has the urgent pointer set
>> 	to (LAST+1).
>> 	Any comments before I sent a PR ?
>
> No, please do and send me the PR number.

It may be well-known here, but this is a long-standing issue.  It's 
been around since 4.2 days.  Cf. the discussions in Stevens's UNPv12e 
(p. 566) and TCP/IP Illustrated, v1 (p 292-296).

It may be impolitic to change this :=}

Regards,

Justin

--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large  *
Institute for General Semantics        | "Weaseling out of things is 
what
                                        |  separates us from the animals.
                                        |  Well, except the weasel."
                                        |        - Homer J Simpson
*--------------------------------------*-------------------------------*