On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 05:52:53AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> ECN trips broken stuff. Happy now, Oh Mighty
> Pedant? :)
You could say the same thing about Debian. It can be incompatible with
broken brains warped by certain other OS's...
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:05:03AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:16:30PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > It may be a minor catch-22, but ECN is currently so broken, that only power
> > users should be using it, as the rest will just continue flooding the
> > netfilter list w
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 02:55:36PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Daniel Stone wrote:
> > No way should we be pushing ECN to the masses. It should stay in the domain
> > of people like DaveM, until routers get fixed.
>
> The same DaveM who said he would enable ECN on vger to force
> p
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 05:52:10AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Yes, I know this. The bits are officially "reserved" in the RFC. Some people
> took this to mean, "must be zero".
This reminds me of my favourite quote from RFC2795:
The Version, Sequence Number, Protocol Number, and Reserved fiel
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:53:13PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 April 2001 21:49, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > True, but often very little, if anything, gets done. about it; seeing as
> > it's just a very small percentage of Linux users. A lot of people are in
> > the production mentali
On Wednesday 25 April 2001 21:49, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 05:12:48PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> > No. ECN should be compiled in to all kernels! The issue is whether the
> > sysctl is set to enable it by default or not.
> >
> > I think that we should all be using ECN and r
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:53:20AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > [OK, ECN isn't
> > broken, the routers are, I know, but same effect. ECN breaks stuff].
>
> No, you still are incorrect. The routers are already broken. Use of
> ECN merely exhibits ev
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:48:22AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Why enable ECN at all, if all it effectively does is break stuff? AFAIK,
> > there's no systems out "in the wild" that actually use ECN to make a
> > difference. All that's happening is
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 05:12:48PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> No. ECN should be compiled in to all kernels! The issue is whether the
> sysctl is set to enable it by default or not.
>
> I think that we should all be using ECN and reporting the bugs to the people
> who run the broken routers.
Quoting Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [OK, ECN isn't
> broken, the routers are, I know, but same effect. ECN breaks stuff].
No, you still are incorrect. The routers are already broken. Use of
ECN merely exhibits evidence of the colossal brain-damage in the routers.
Quoting Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why enable ECN at all, if all it effectively does is break stuff? AFAIK,
> there's no systems out "in the wild" that actually use ECN to make a
> difference. All that's happening is that peoples' systems are being
> broken.
> Which is sub-optimal.
I wou
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:02:47AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> mkfs doesn't fry harddrives, it fries data on harddrives. However, using
> wrong video settings can actually destroy certain monitors.
Would any of those monitors even work after you dug them up from the
bottom of the dusty parts close
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:02:47AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > If we left everything to "you have to be smart enough", then let's just
> > leave out the entire linux kernel, most of the software in Debian, and
> > go for a minimum cygnus install. Let's
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> If we left everything to "you have to be smart enough", then let's just
> leave out the entire linux kernel, most of the software in Debian, and
> go for a minimum cygnus install. Let's just ditch all non-i386
> architectures. Hell, let's get rid of everyt
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:52:09PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Why enable ECN at all, if all it effectively does is break stuff? AFAIK,
> > there's no systems out "in the wild" that actually use ECN to make a
> > difference. All that's happening is that peopl
On Wednesday 25 April 2001 14:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > Why enable ECN at all, if all it effectively does is break stuff?
> > > AFAIK, there's no systems out "in the wild" that actually use ECN to
> > > make a difference. All that's happening is that peoples' systems are
> > > being broken. Whi
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:16:30PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:52:09PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Previously Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > Why enable ECN at all, if all it effectively does is break stuff? AFAIK,
> > > there's no systems out "in the wild" that actuall
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:16:30PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> It may be a minor catch-22, but ECN is currently so broken, that only power
> users should be using it, as the rest will just continue flooding the
> netfilter list with "Netfilter breaks all my websites!". [OK, ECN isn't
> broken,
Previously Daniel Stone wrote:
> No way should we be pushing ECN to the masses. It should stay in the domain
> of people like DaveM, until routers get fixed.
The same DaveM who said he would enable ECN on vger to force
people who want to subscribe to lkml to fix their equipment?
Wichert.
--
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:52:39PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> That's the wrong solution. It prevents people who want to use ECN from
> >> using it. The correct solution is to disable it in /etc/sysctl.conf.
> >> How
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:52:39PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> That's the wrong solution. It prevents people who want to use ECN from
> >> using it. The correct solution is to disable it in /etc/sysctl.conf.
> >> How
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:52:09PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Why enable ECN at all, if all it effectively does is break stuff? AFAIK,
> > there's no systems out "in the wild" that actually use ECN to make a
> > difference. All that's happening is that peopl
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 02:13:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Does "this functionality" mean disabling ECN or sysctl.conf?
The former.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbe
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> That's the wrong solution. It prevents people who want to use ECN from
> >> using it. The correct solution is to disable it in /etc/sysctl.conf.
> >> However, I just had a l
Previously Daniel Stone wrote:
> Why enable ECN at all, if all it effectively does is break stuff? AFAIK,
> there's no systems out "in the wild" that actually use ECN to make a
> difference. All that's happening is that peoples' systems are being broken.
> Which is sub-optimal.
With that attitude
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
>> That's the wrong solution. It prevents people who want to use ECN from
>> using it. The correct solution is to disable it in /etc/sysctl.conf.
>> However, I just had a look, and sysctl.conf is in procps which isn't
>> e
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:28:22PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:21:36PM +1000, Mark Purcell wrote:
> >
> > One of the comments on /. also states;
> >
> > " If you find ECN enabled in your distributor's 2.4.x kernel
> > package by default, please consider this a severe mi
Previously Herbert Xu wrote:
> That's the wrong solution. It prevents people who want to use ECN from
> using it. The correct solution is to disable it in /etc/sysctl.conf.
> However, I just had a look, and sysctl.conf is in procps which isn't
> essential. So we may need to move this functionali
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:21:36PM +1000, Mark Purcell wrote:
>
> One of the comments on /. also states;
>
> " If you find ECN enabled in your distributor's 2.4.x kernel
> package by default, please consider this a severe mistake on
> your distributor's part."
That's the wrong solution. It pr
29 matches
Mail list logo
