Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:58:58 -0800 (PST) | | From | David Lang <> | | Subject | Re: ECN: Clearing the air (fwd) |
| |
I am behind a raptor firewall and ran the test that David M posted a couple days ago and was able to sucessfully connect to his test machine.
so either raptor tolorates ECN (at least in the verion I am running) or the test was not valid.
David Lang
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, jamal wrote:
> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:15:24 -0500 (EST) > From: jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca> > To: James Sutherland <jas88@cam.ac.uk> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: ECN: Clearing the air (fwd) > > > > On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, James Sutherland wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, jamal wrote: > > > There were people who made the suggestion that TCP should retry after a > > > RST because it "might be an anti-ECN path" > > > > That depends what you mean by "retry"; I wanted the ability to attempt a > > non-ECN connection. i.e. if I'm a mailserver, and try connecting to one of > > Hotmail's MX hosts with ECN, I'll get RST every time. I would like to be > > able to retry with ECN disabled for that connection. > > > > We are allowing two rules to be broken, one is RFC 793 which > clearly and unambigously defines what a RST means. the second is > the firewall or IDS box which clearly is in violation. > The simplest thing in this chaos is to fix the firewall because it is in > violation to begin with. > I think it is silly to try to be "robust against RSTs" because of ECN. > What if the RST was genuine? > > I see that we mostly have philosphical differences. You'd rather adapt > to the criminal and most people would rather have the criminal adjust to > society. > > I think CISCO have been very good in responding fast. I blame the site > owners who dont want to go beyond their 9-5 job and upgrade their boxes. > In the old internet where only hackers were qualified for such jobs, the > upgrade would have happened by now at hotmail. I suppose it's part of > growing pains. > If you think the CISCOs were bad sending RSTs, i am sure you havent heard > about the Raptor firewalls. They dont even bother to send you anything if > you have ECN enabled ;-> Simply swallow your SYNs. > So tell me, what do you propose we deal with these? Do we further > disambiguate or assume the packet was lost? > I actually bothered calling Raptor, they chose to ignore me. > > You should never ASSume anything about something that is "reserved". > I posted the definition from the collegiate dictionary, but i am sure most > dictionaries would give the same definition. > > It's too bad we end up defining protocols using English. We should use > mathematical equations to remove any ambiguity ;-> > > 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/ > - 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/
|  |