From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: be more strict before accepting ECN negociation Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 20:23:35 +0200 Message-ID: <1336155815.3752.365.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1336144442.3752.348.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <4FA41B5B.5080103@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev , Perry Lorier , Matt Mathis , Yuchung Cheng , Neal Cardwell , Tom Herbert , Wilmer van der Gaast , Dave =?ISO-8859-1?Q?T=E4ht?= , Ankur Jain To: Rick Jones Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:44010 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753875Ab2EDSXp (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2012 14:23:45 -0400 Received: by bkcji2 with SMTP id ji2so2448196bkc.19 for ; Fri, 04 May 2012 11:23:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FA41B5B.5080103@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 11:09 -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > On 05/04/2012 08:14 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > From: Eric Dumazet > > > > It appears some networks play bad games with the two bits reserved for > > ECN. This can trigger false congestion notifications and very slow > > transferts. > > > > Since RFC 3168 (6.1.1) forbids SYN packets to carry CT bits, we can > > disable TCP ECN negociation if it happens we receive mangled CT bits in > > the SYN packet. > > What sort of networks were these? Any chance it was some sort of > attempt to add ECN to FastOpen? Nothing to do with fastopen. Just take a look at a random http server and sample all SYN packets it receives. Some of them have TOS bits 0 or 1 set, or even both bits set.