>>>>> "David" == David S Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: David> It says "reserved for future use, must be zero". Poor choice of wording. If I was implementing this, I would assume that any packet with a non-zero value is illegal by this RFC, and act accordingly. I would assume that this "future use" may require handling of the packet in a non-standard way, and packets with a non-zero value cannot be used until the "future use" is better defined. Also, the above statement should really clarify how routers should cope if they receive a non-zero value. Drop it, pass it through unchanged, or set it to zero? -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 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 dealing with ECN James Sutherland
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Gregory Maxwell
- [OT] Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Gregory Maxwell
- Re: [OT] Re: hotmail not dealing with... Michael H. Warfield
- Re: [OT] Re: hotmail not dealing with... Gregory Maxwell
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN James Sutherland
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Gregory Maxwell
- RE: hotmail not dealing with ECN David Schwartz
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN David Lang
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Johannes Erdfelt
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Brian May
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Jeremy M. Dolan
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Florian Weimer
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Rogier Wolff
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Alan Cox
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Matti Aarnio
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN David S. Miller
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN James Sutherland
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Lars Marowsky-Bree
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN James Sutherland
- Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN Lars Marowsky-Bree