EJP wrote:
> In the state diagram in RFC 793 it shows that the active closer (the
> first to *issue* a FIN) goes from ESTABLISHED via FIN-WAIT-1, FIN-WAIT-2
> (if the ACK and reverse FIN are received separately), TIME-WAIT, to
> CLOSED. The passive closer (i.e. the first one to *receive* a FIN) goes
> from ESTABLISHED via CLOSE-WAIT and LAST-ACK to CLOSED.

> My question is, why isn't the passive closer considered to be vulnerable
> to the problems which the TIME-WAIT state solves?

Because it is only necessary to keep the connection state at one end
of the four-tuple, and the designers were optimisic (my assesment, ok,
guess I wasn't actually there) that having only one side keep the
state was sufficient. That one side in TIME_WAIT is there to cover
both ends.

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...