From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:02:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:01:55 -0500 Received: from james.kalifornia.com ([208.179.0.2]:46694 "EHLO james.kalifornia.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:01:39 -0500 Message-ID: <3A7426E1.728BB87D@kalifornia.com> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:04:17 -0800 From: Ben Ford X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-test10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Sutherland CC: jamal , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ECN: Clearing the air (fwd) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Sutherland wrote: > I'm sure we all know what the IETF is, and where ECN came from. I haven't > seen anyone suggesting ignoring RST, either: DM just imagined that, > AFAICS. > > The one point I would like to make, though, is that firewalls are NOT > "brain-damaged" for blocking ECN: according to the RFCs governing > firewalls, and the logic behind their design, blocking packets in an > unknown format (i.e. with reserved bits set) is perfectly legitimate. Yes, > those firewalls should be updated to allow ECN-enabled packets > through. However, to break connectivity to such sites deliberately just > because they are not supporting an *experimental* extension to the current > protocols is rather silly. Do keep in mind, we aren't breaking connectivity, they are. -b - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/