From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: be more strict before accepting ECN negociation Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 11:48:49 -0700 Message-ID: <4FA42491.2020104@hp.com> References: <1336144442.3752.348.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <4FA41B5B.5080103@hp.com> <1336155815.3752.365.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev , Perry Lorier , Matt Mathis , Yuchung Cheng , Neal Cardwell , Tom Herbert , Wilmer van der Gaast , =?UTF-8?B?RGF2ZSBUw6RodA==?= , Ankur Jain To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.61]:36989 "EHLO g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753831Ab2EDSsw (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2012 14:48:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1336155815.3752.365.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/04/2012 11:23 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 11:09 -0700, Rick Jones wrote: >> 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. I'll fire-up tcpdump on netperf.org: tcpdump -i eth0 -vvv '(tcp[tcpflags] & tcp-syn != 0) && (ip[1] != 0x0)' and see what appears. rick