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 13:01:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:01:27 -0500 Received: from barnowl.demon.co.uk ([158.152.23.247]:44294 "EHLO barnowl.demon.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:01:13 -0500 Mail-Copies-To: never To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ECN: Clearing the air (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200101281739.SAA05979@cave.bitwizard.nl> From: Graham Murray Date: 28 Jan 2001 18:01:06 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200101281739.SAA05979@cave.bitwizard.nl> (R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl's message of "Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:39:32 +0100 (MET)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090001 (Oort Gnus v0.01) Emacs/20.7 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 R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl (Rogier Wolff) writes: > If the firewall operator is sufficiently paranoid, they can say: "We > don't trust the ECN implementation on our hosts behind the firewall, > so we want to disable it.". In which case would the "correct" action not be to zero the ECN bits of packets passing through the firewall? This would have the effect of informing the ECN aware hosts (both within and outside the firewall) that ECN is not available for that connection. This would not prevent ECN aware systems from connecting. - 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/