Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: ECN: Clearing the air (fwd) | Date | Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:23:28 +0100 (MET) | From | (Rogier Wolff) |
| |
jamal wrote: > > > 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.
Take "configure" with a bit of liberty. Because the firewall vendor chose to hard-code this into the firmware. "configuring" in this case means reconfiguring new software on the firewall. Blame the vendor.
Roger.
-- ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. * There are also old, bald pilots. - 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/
| |