From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 8 May 2001 23:16:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 8 May 2001 23:16:25 -0400 Received: from elk.aciri.org ([192.150.187.21]:20747 "EHLO elk.aciri.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 8 May 2001 23:16:12 -0400 Message-Id: <200105090316.f493G8i48743@elk.aciri.org> To: "David S. Miller" cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu, Sally Floyd , kk@teraoptic.com, jitu@aciri.org, jamal From: Sally Floyd Subject: Re: ECN: Volunteers needed Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:16:08 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >This was the big argument I was running into from sites, "well it >isn't standard yet, when it is we'll do something about it". The >larger sites like to avoid updates until absolutely necessary. The purpose of my draft on "Inappropriate TCP Resets Considered Harmful" is to argue that firewalls and other devices should not send Resets in response to Reserved flags in the TCP header regardless of the standards status of the reserved flag. System administrators will clearly have to decide for themselves whether they find the argument convincing. And my own belief is that, while working to get the broken firewalls and such fixed, it is also not a bad idea for TCP implementations to make sure they are as robust as possible in the presence of such broken equipment... - Sally