Li, Qing wrote: > It appears the TCP urgent pointer is off by 1. > > In RFC-1122, section 4.2.2.4 on Page 83 describes the > urgent pointer error in RFC-793. > > The 6.0-CURRENT code has the urgent pointer set > to (LAST+1). > > Any comments before I sent a PR ? No, please do and send me the PR number. -- Andre