From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tcp: split tcp_ecn sysctl knob to distinguish between IPv4 and IPv6 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 02:31:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20130106013117.GC28545@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <20130103000009.GG4464@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130103122844.GH4464@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130103.045350.1322196416782379673.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:38416 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754618Ab3AFBbS (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jan 2013 20:31:18 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130103.045350.1322196416782379673.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:53:50AM -0800, David Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:00:09AM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > >> ECN could be more reliable when used with IPv6 (I don't have proofs). For > >> people who want to try ECN with IPv6 but still have problems connecting > >> to destinations because of broken IPv4 routers this switch allows one > >> to enable ECN just for IPv6. > >> > >> Perhaps ECN could be enabled by default in future. > >> > >> No code changes since initial submission, just added documentation. > > > > May I ask what lead to the rejection of the patch? > > I don't see any value in splitting up ipv4 and ipv6. > > I think we should turn the existing knob on unliaterally > by default. That would be a much better patch. I wonder if we really should go down this route to turn on ecn by default or if I should try to come up with a patch which marks non working ecn paths in the destination cache and suppress ecn for those connections. Any advice?