Re: sysctl should disable ECN by default
Well all of this has been said on this thread here allready, but
I'll repeat it never the less to get the facts straight.
Zitiere Dominik Kubla <kubla@sciobyte.de>:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 05:30:12PM +0200, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> But the whole discussion here is folly. The whole thing has been
> discussed
on linux-kernel by people far more knowlegable in this things
> than the
average debian developer. I think we should follow the
> conclusions
from that discussions: enable ECN by default and every
> non-compliant
device be dammned.
However you, or whoever on the kernel lists might argue, the default in
Linus' kernel sources is off! Please check it yourself.
> Mind you that we are only talking about firewalls here (and all of the
> can be fixed by firmware upgrades, or at least they should).
Fact is some aren't.
> Ordinary
routers have no business altering packets passing through and
> ordinary
hosts have to ignore "reserved bits" they don't know about.
> Routers
doing NAT are to be treated as firewalls. If they are broken:
> replace
them. They will have more bugs that this one anyway.
You are wellcome to be without a fault. Unfortunately a lot of HW/SW isn't.
And often enough it's not up to the user to replace it. He just has to live with it.
I think Craig Sanders and Anthony Towns said it best:
Craig:
> the fact is that there is no possibility of harm if ECN is disabled
> in the kernel, while there IS possibility of harm if it is enabled.
> therefore it should be disabled by default.
Anthony:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "idealism" but surely it's obvious the
> solution that's closest to ideal for the most users should be chosen as
> the default.
*t
Reply to: