Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:18:54 -0500 (EST) | From | jamal <> | Subject | Re: ECN: Clearing the air (fwd) |
| |
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, 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 email was not necessarily intended for you. You just pulled the pin. There were people who made the suggestion that TCP should retry after a RST because it "might be an anti-ECN path"
> > 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.
I dont agree that unknown format == reserved. I think it is bad design to assume that. You may be forgiven if you provide the operator opportunities to reset your assumptions via a config option. It has nothing to do with a paranoia setting, just a bad design. Nothing legit about that.
> 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? The internet is a form of organized chaos, sometimes you gotta make these type of decisions to get things done. Imagine the joy _most_ people would get flogging all firewall admins who block all ICMP. There is nothing silly with the decision, davem is simply a modern day internet hero.
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/
| |