In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > I'm still not sure why it's been decided not to do fallback or how this > whole situation is any different from path MTU discovery. Because this will add a Fallback (non ECN) packet to every denied target. I think this is bad policy at least. It might violate the RFCs, too. Keep in mind, we cannot recognice a rejection due to ECN. Greetings Bernd - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- [PATCH] document ECN in 2.4 Configure.help Barry K. Nathan
- Re: [PATCH] document ECN in 2.4 Configure.help David S. Miller
- Re: [PATCH] document ECN in 2.4 Configure.help Oliver Xymoron
- Re: [PATCH] document ECN in 2.4 Configure.he... Andrew Morton
- Re: [PATCH] document ECN in 2.4 Configur... Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] document ECN in 2.4 Conf... Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] document ECN in 2.4... James A . Sutherland
- Re: [PATCH] document ECN in... Pavel Machek
- Re: [PATCH] document ECN in 2.4 Conf... Gregory Maxwell
- Re: [PATCH] document ECN in 2.4 Configure.help Bernd Eckenfels
- Re: [PATCH] document ECN in 2.4 Configure.he... David S. Miller