3 ms·
should this not be "Windows corrupting UDP Datagrams in some (possibly lower chance) cases"? The list of circumstances for the bug to occur (from the article):
by tiernano 11y ago
should this not be "Windows corrupting UDP Datagrams in some (possibly lower chance) cases"? The list of circumstances for the bug to occur (from the article):
1. UDP protocol. (Duh!)
2. Multicast sends. (Does not happen with unicast UDP.)
3. A process on the same machine must be joined to the same multicast group as being sent.
4. Window's IP MTU size set to smaller than the default 1500 (I tested 1300).
5. Sending datagrams large enough to require fragmentation by the reduced MTU, but still small enough not to require fragmentation with a 1500-byte MTU.
- IvyMike 11y ago> should this not be "Windows corrupting UDP Datagrams in some (possibly lower chance) cases"? I mean, I guess, but I kinda assumed as much, since if Windows was corrupting UDP at any significant frequency certainly it would have been noticed by now.
- jandrese 11y agoIt is a fairly unusual situation, but yeah, I would expect someone else to have seen this by now. I might have to try this myself to see if I can replicate it.