On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Guillaume Morin wrote:
> Dans un message du 05 sep à 17:30, T.Pospisek's MailLists écrivait :
> > The question is only if devices should be programmed in order to know
> > the future and it's potential proposed stadards by the IETF. Mind you I
> > don't know if the devices in question (websites, routers etc. droping ECN
> > packets) *are* violating a standard that was current at *their* time. The
> > routers in particular I think *are* wrong, since they are making decisions
> > based on bits that at that time were reserved.
>
> It is not a good debate. Devices can be upgraded. Net admins should do
> their job.
You will not be able to upgrade a Zyxel Prestige 2864i. And a lot of
other old equipment.
> > With ECN set, Debian's default is to plain *refuse* to talk to all
> > equipment which, for whatever reason has problems with ECN.
>
> Debian default does not refuse to talk, it is the broken
> routers/firewalls which do.
Yes - it does. By knowingly setting a flag which is known (!) to cause
trouble.
> Should we stop progress because admins do not their job. I do not think
> so.
There is no one taking your right away to:
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn
and march ahead on the edge of progress. It's another thing though to set
this flag on default and leave the user in the dark why wondering why
suddenly connectivity has ceased. Which is what Debian does.
*t
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Pospisek
SourcePole - Linux & Open Source Solutions
http://sourcepole.ch
Elestastrasse 18, 7310 Bad Ragaz, Switzerland
Tel: +41 (81) 330 77 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------