From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Corey Hickey Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Account for duplicate ACKs with invalid SACK-blocks Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:15:31 -0700 Message-ID: <52159063.5010000@fatooh.org> References: <1376935800.4226.71.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1376940568-16512-1-git-send-email-christoph.paasch@uclouvain.be> <20130821.203201.369023440348094508.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: christoph.paasch@uclouvain.be, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel@linuxace.com, benjamin.hesmans@uclouvain.be To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from juniper.fatooh.org ([173.255.221.30]:53500 "EHLO juniper.fatooh.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752031Ab3HVEPd (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:15:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130821.203201.369023440348094508.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2013-08-21 20:32, David Miller wrote: > From: Christoph Paasch > Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:29:26 +0200 > >> There exist sequence-number rewriting middleboxes, who do not modify the >> sequence-number in the SACK-blocks. > > These are bugs that the vendor's should fix, not something we should > cater to at all. > > I'm not applying patches like these, and I've rejected similar > workarounds in the past 18 years, so this position is strong and > consistent. > > Sorry. That's not terrible for me; we'll most likely be turning off SEQ randomization on the FWSM, when we have time to make sure it doesn't break anything (which it shouldn't). -Corey