Hi Martin,
Ok, I agree. But the thing that confuses me is the dup ACK that
is ”requesting” the fast retransmission is comming from 10.32.22.90 and the dup
acks are always post a ” TCP Previous segment lost” originated from 192.176.3.132
witch in my mind indicates that 192.176.3.132 is missing a packet sent
from 10.32.22.90.
Someone please enlighten a lost ”networker”!
Regards,
Thomas
From: Martin Visser
[mailto:martinvisser99@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: den 19 april 2010 15:27
To: Community support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-users] TCP Previous segment lost, TCP dup ACK
Regards, Martin
MartinVisser99@xxxxxxxxx
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Thomas Ellingsén <Thomas.Ellingsen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi,
I get TCP Previous segment lost folowed by 2-10 TCP Dup ACK
3381 2010-04-19 12:33:55.284770 192.176.3.132
10.32.22.90 TCP [TCP Previous segment lost]
[TCP segment of a reassembled PDU]
3382 2010-04-19 12:33:55.286392 10.32.22.90
192.176.3.132 TCP [TCP Dup ACK 3379#1] 56791
> 29900 [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=269280 Win=254 Len=0 SLE=270296 SRE=270660
3384 2010-04-19 12:33:55.333856 10.32.22.90
192.176.3.132 TCP [TCP Dup ACK 3379#2] 56791
> 29900 [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=269280 Win=254 Len=0 SLE=270296 SRE=270723
3387 2010-04-19 12:33:55.478371 10.32.22.90
192.176.3.132 TCP [TCP Dup ACK 3379#3] 56791
> 29900 [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=269280 Win=254 Len=0 SLE=270296 SRE=270791
...
>From what I understand there is lost packets. Is there any way to see in
what direction the packets are getting dropped/lost?
Why is 10.32.22.90 sending the same ACK multiple times? Is "he"
waiting for a response on the ACK?? It does not make sence to me.
Regrads,
Thomas
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users
mailto:wireshark-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
