Re: sysctl should disable ECN by default
> Incidentaly I'd today filled a *critical* bugreport against
> kernel-image-2.4.8 just because of that.
It lists as "Done"; perhaps you're expected to file it
someplace else?
> The first *experimental* rfc for ECN dates from 1999. That's not like ages.
> There's a lot of equipment online from that time.
No. IP and TCP have been around a little longer. The bits
that ECN uses are RESERVED. Reserved means "this will
be used someday" not "this must be zero for the packet
to be valid", and certainly not "set this bit to zero".
Blaming ECN for faulty IP implementations is wrong.
Calling a box that reaches inside your IP frame to zero
a bit in the TCP header a "router" is just wrong (this is
what the Zyxel thing does wrong).
Finally, just a warning: calling it *experimental* is only
going to last a little while longer. It's been approved as
a Proposed Standard, and is just waiting for it's RFC number.
(don't think proposed is meaningless: SACK is just a proposed
standard. header compression is just a proposed standard).
> If someone wants ECN he *has* to understand what he's doing, because he'll
> potentially break his system. ECN has to be *off* by default!
although I think I disagree with everything else you've
said <grin> I agree with you on this point.
-neil
Reply to: