From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:35:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:35:48 -0500 Received: from james.kalifornia.com ([208.179.0.2]:48999 "EHLO james.kalifornia.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:35:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3A743CE4.A13A7878@kalifornia.com> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:38:12 -0800 From: Ben Ford X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-test10 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Sutherland CC: jamal , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ECN: Clearing the air (fwd) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Sutherland wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Ben Ford wrote: > > > James Sutherland wrote: > > > > > I'm sure we all know what the IETF is, and where ECN came from. I haven't > > > seen anyone suggesting ignoring RST, either: DM just imagined that, > > > AFAICS. > > > > > > The one point I would like to make, though, is that firewalls are NOT > > > "brain-damaged" for blocking ECN: according to the RFCs governing > > > firewalls, and the logic behind their design, blocking packets in an > > > unknown format (i.e. with reserved bits set) is perfectly legitimate. Yes, > > > those firewalls should be updated to allow ECN-enabled packets > > > through. However, to break connectivity to such sites deliberately just > > > because they are not supporting an *experimental* extension to the current > > > protocols is rather silly. > > > > Do keep in mind, we aren't breaking connectivity, they are. > > Let me guess: you're a lawyer? :-) > > This is a very strange definition: if someone makes a change such that > their machine can no longer communicate with existing systems, I would say > the person making the incompatible change is the one who broke it. > > Maybe my mains sockets should be waterproof: it's still my fault when > pouring water over them causes problems, even if the standards say the > socket should be waterproof! > Bad analogy. Try this. Jim-Bob down at your local Post Office starts rejecting all your mail that has the 4 digit zip code extension (Not in wide use, but a "proposed standard") because he's old school and doesn't know what it is -- maybe its secret spy communications!!! (Although this would have the side benefit of really reducing the amount of junk mail received . . . . . . ) And no, I'm not a lawyer. -b - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/