On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:48:22AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > Quoting Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Why enable ECN at all, if all it effectively does is break stuff? AFAIK, > > there's no systems out "in the wild" that actually use ECN to make a > > difference. All that's happening is that peoples' systems are being > > broken. > > Which is sub-optimal. > > I would have expected something more intelligent from a "Linux > kernel developer". ECN is COMPLETELY backward-compatible, and the bits > it uses are reserved for it. The RFC's instruct these reserved bits to > be ignored if the device does not support ECN. When firewalls silently > drop packets just because they have the ECN bits set, those firewalls
Yes, I know this. The bits are officially "reserved" in the RFC. Some people took this to mean, "must be zero". > are broken, not Linux or ECN. In short: it's not our problem. I wish It's not our brokenness, but when you have chunks of the web blacked out, it really becomes your problem. > people would stop being so sensationalist about ECN. linux-kernel has > been tracking delinquent sites for a few months now, and DaveM resolved > to turn ECN on on vger, which would effictively cut off hotmail users > from it since hotmail is (was?) one such broken site. All of a sudden Still is, and AFAIK ECN isn't on vger. > Slashdot posts a FUD-filled article claiming ECN is enabled by default, > isn't backward-compatible, and breaks things. I bet that's where this > thread came from. I don't read that crap. I'm speaking from the numerous threads, and experience (I tried it for a while). -- Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
