Re: ip_conntrack garbage


"Jim Garrison" <jhg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44qdnRnOHZQeNCzeRVn-pw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Grant wrote:

>>>Aren't these supposed to go away after a while? They've been
>>>in the conntrack table now for about 22 hours.

>> That's okay, just over four days to go ;-)

> So [UNREPLIED] is considered equivalent to [ESTABLISHED]
> and uses the ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_established timer?

> Just curious, but why isn't the syn_sent timeout (120 sec)
> used?

It is totally reasonable for a reply to come more than 2 minutes after
the original packet.

DS


.

Relevant Pages