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 14:45:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:45:48 -0500 Received: from [63.95.87.168] ([63.95.87.168]:28684 "HELO xi.linuxpower.cx") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:45:36 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:45:35 -0500 From: Gregory Maxwell To: Ben Ford Cc: James Sutherland , jamal , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ECN: Clearing the air (fwd) Message-ID: <20010128144535.D13195@xi.linuxpower.cx> In-Reply-To: <3A7426E1.728BB87D@kalifornia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.8i In-Reply-To: <3A7426E1.728BB87D@kalifornia.com>; from ben@kalifornia.com on Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:04:17AM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 06:04:17AM -0800, Ben Ford wrote: > James Sutherland wrote: [snip] > > 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. Thats the crux of the argument. No one made them run a firewall, they chose one that blocks undefined behavior. The Internet is a dynamic system, they broke the end-to-end model with their firewall, the onus is on them to keep up. - 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/