> > I was not suggesting ignoring these. OTOH, there is no reason to treat an > > RST packet as "go away and never ever send traffic to this host again" - > > i.e. trying another TCP connection, this time with ECN disabled, would be > > acceptable. > > Using a different source port number, even. But that has to be done on the application level, which means we need a socket option to not use ECN. It is not acceptable that the kernel changes the port number of a socket which already has one, or any application which uses getsockname() on the connecting socket will horribly break.[1] Olaf [1] and this means any application using libsocks5, so nobody tell me "no sane application does need this". - 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/
- Re: hotmail not dealin... James Sutherland
- Re: hotmail not deali... Lars Marowsky-Bree
- Re: hotmail not deali... James Sutherland
- Re: hotmail not deali... Chris Ricker
- Re: hotmail not dealin... Henning P. Schmiedehausen
- Re: hotmail not dealin... Matti Aarnio
- Re: hotmail not dealin... Jeremy M. Dolan
- Re: hotmail not dealin... Jamie Lokier
- Re: hotmail not dealin... Drago Goricanec
- Re: hotmail not dealin... Jamie Lokier
- Re: hotmail not dealin... Olaf Titz
- Re: hotmail not dealin... Jamie Lokier
- Re: hotmail not dealin... David S. Miller
- Re: hotmail not deali... Lars Marowsky-Bree
- Re: hotmail not deali... David S. Miller
- Re: hotmail not dealin... Jamie Lokier
- Re: hotmail not dealin... Thunder from the hill
- Re: hotmail not dealing wi... Thunder from the hill
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Bernd Eckenfels
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Bernd Eckenfels
- RE: hotmail not dealing with ECN Randal, Phil