DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:from:to:date:subject:message-id:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
	:mime-version; q=dns; s=default; b=QnSZg5HFTW6lm10WBACic2img/d3W
	Uf25YHrZF58HWKaTwYMbWHue5Xnl3iAfZym6LQ0reBe2BXj+pO+qHRDvefT9FkDv
	YMU9TQZHYW+vGt4WRwygV0Cdv6jFWA6G5GAN50OS5G4rBG3wWNtlYpwdTiJ6sFfQ
	VXP95sNuq6dJOQ=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
From: Oleg Moskalenko <oleg.moskalenko@citrix.com>
To: "cygwin@cygwin.com" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:44:41 -0700
Subject: RE: UDP/DTLS sockets communication pattern is broken in Cygwin
Message-ID: <031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A30140C1ACA37B@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: <031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A30140C1ACA374@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <20130411212115.GA1376@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A30140C1ACA378@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <20130412114354.GC11358@calimero.vinschen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20130412114354.GC11358@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


> 
> However, I think I found a workaround on the application level.
> Apparently all packets sent to a specific address are sent to the first socket
> which has been bound to the address.  If that socket has been closed, the next in
> line gets the packets (unless it has been connected and the sender is not the
> connected address).  So what I did was this:
> 
> Before starting step 14, I created a third socket, which then replaced the server
> socket:

Thank you, Corinna, for the reply and for the idea.

Unfortunately, the workaround will work well only in the case of a single client. 
In the multiple clients scenario, it will create a sort of race condition: 

1) some packets already scheduled by OS to the "original" packet will be lost;
2) some packets delivered in between the sockets destruction/creation will be wrongly rejected.

But this is better than nothing. I'll think whether we can live with it.

Regards,
Oleg