Re: sysctl should disable ECN by default
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 04:39:30PM -0700, Neil Spring wrote:
> > 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).
ECN is RFC2481
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2481.txt?number=2481
--
Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT "Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards!"
--from a /. post
\_|_/ Andago
\/ \/ Av. Santa Engracia, 54
a n d a g o |-- E-28010 Madrid - tfno:+34(91)2041100
/\___/\ http://www.andago.com
/ | \ "Innovando en Internet"
eric@andago.com
Reply to: