4 ms·
I believe egberts1's point is that leaving it unspecified invites different implementations to implement it differently. Some might choose to use the bytes from
by Arnavion 3y ago
I believe egberts1's point is that leaving it unspecified invites different implementations to implement it differently. Some might choose to use the bytes from the first fragment, others might choose to use the bytes from the newer fragment. You could have a situation where the IDS / firewall / misc security appliance think the packets contain a benign request but the application server interprets them in a malicious way. Things like HTTP request smuggling rely on the same kind of mismatch at the application protocol layer, for example.
- raggi 3y agoThe problem is intractable unless you enforce lossless perfect ordering as a strict requirement. There's no way to define "first" as written in the premise without it.
- ikiris 3y agoYeah, when programmers think they understand networking, is like the long rants about their understanding of timezones, and names, and email addresses. Any order is a valid case that someone got as their "correct" order.
- egberts1 3y agoCase in point, MS Windows does it one way, UNIX does it another way.
- ikiris 3y agoYou're missing the point of because of packet reordering, any order can and should be valid.