X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_THEBAT,RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:08:56 +0400 From: Andrey Repin Reply-To: Andrey Repin Message-ID: <124480922.20110905080856@mtu-net.ru> To: Corinna Vinschen Subject: Re: Different error on socket while connecting to a box behind firewall In-Reply-To: <20110902095328.GD22172@calimero.vinschen.de> References: <20110902095328 DOT GD22172 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Greetings, Corinna Vinschen! > However, even with this fix, you might not get EHOSTUNREACH either. In > my testing, the error returned by the underlying Winsock getsockopt > function is not WSAEHOSTUNREACH, but WSAETIMEDOUT. This will be > translated into ETIMEDOUT == "Connection timed out". To clarify, and what I think is important to understand, is that the "Host unreachable" error status could only be triggered by the parent router returning an explicit "not reachable" reply to a connection attempt. But since this reply is an ICMP message, many poorly configured intermediate routers, like home firewalls, could block it and you will get the WSATIMEDOUT for no apparent answer from the remote host in time. -- WBR, Andrey Repin (anrdaemon AT freemail DOT ru) 05.09.2011, <08:04> Sorry for my terrible english... -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple