From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC3913B2A4 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 05:38:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 09:37:55 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=soltysiak.com; s=protonmail; t=1569231482; bh=8zdEBiS8ebSOYKJ0GBLV2KaM8lo6OHQOdIlJuyVOaNQ=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From; b=MNLnnv9boj/YKDawzMLXyZeRjvyvNDw4XWz45xmEV14ltDUjy2Yj5YtfyJMNDEDy4 CGxsG0hRzum04Jj+teaCqIZmNu9TDm1+bNAqW8nMM76rstNqzEctnVZP0IexS+kUPw rmhGbxhP5X1EO6xXB4HVopbPp2eRdvzMO29WbwEM= To: Dave Taht From: =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_So=C5=82tysiak?= Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson , cerowrt-devel , bloat Reply-To: =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_So=C5=82tysiak?= Message-ID: <7s3IIz5xdCFBZa7qezeDJsrz5I5m0eFbzp-4LiCUsXk3gVt7Y8FXCf6ATGu3ZvRawzFQQH5snU8TRZaGnR4hlRQvgg3CbGgYw3BTE-b3AQQ=@soltysiak.com> In-Reply-To: References: <_WFBkuGQ2t1nbWOuKjsSzjHC5Yc60ZcSTKLdJOyJKIRBiHaLkI4uYnZeUOuKuhaq-zLb3ZQ5IuEmBfSjSelCnZOJJ34oJdAN-rl8MXbF-s4=@soltysiak.com> Feedback-ID: BgGZWNpQ72vxpb-bOaC_p2RD0qvvfcZ_T0IqNMUSaeON2PXyOvZelvE-Ssn070-B4tVEp5CwLkAiLupAHKEVcA==:Ext:ProtonMail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=7.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on mail.protonmail.ch Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Revising the synflood limit X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 09:38:03 -0000 > I'm not sure if it is a "nice catch" or not yet. It's merely me (now > us) tying two anomalies together that might be connected. Can you > convert that -j drop to a -j log to see where they come from? So, I must say I got rusty with my iptables. When I said I have the same, I had positive packet counters on the limit ru= le, not the drop rule (or the log rule I added) So, sorry to jump the gun, but I'm not experiencing it. Maciej