On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 15:35, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said: > > Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote: > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/ > > > > That RFC is the opposite of funny (to me). Just because rfc1149 is funny > > that doesn't mean that repetitions of it are funny too. Quite the > contrary. > > Yes, but I bet many providers recognize rfc1149 now. rfc6214 gives us a > new > brown M&M to put into the contracts... >
You need to specify "tail drop" behavior.
