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 13:10:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:09:53 -0500 Received: from shell.cyberus.ca ([209.195.95.7]:63669 "EHLO shell.cyberus.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:09:47 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:08:40 -0500 (EST) From: jamal To: Rogier Wolff cc: James Sutherland , Subject: Re: ECN: Clearing the air (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200101281739.SAA05979@cave.bitwizard.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote: > jamal wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > This is the way it's done with all protocols. or i should say the way it > > used to be done. How do you expect ECN to be deployed otherwise? > > Thinking about this a bit more: > > A sufficiently paranoid firewall should block requests that he doesn't > fully understand. ECN was in this category, so old firewalls are > "right" to block these. (Sending an 'RST' is not elegant. So be it.) > > However, ECN is now "understood", and operators are now in a position > to configure their firewall to "do the right thing". This is This would have been easier. The firewall operators were not provided with this option. This is hard-coded. I agree with the rest of your message. cheers, jamal - 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/