>>>>> "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

