Messages in this thread | | | From | John Bradford <> | Subject | Re: RFC3168, section 6.1.1.1 - ECN and retransmit of SYN | Date | Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:56:57 +0000 (GMT) |
| |
> > What if the first SYN packet, or the response to it is lost, (which is > > more possible on congested links, which is when ECN would be most > > useful), and we disable ECN - then we loose out on functionality we > > could have, and the work around is actually detremental to > > performance. Once 99% of internet hosts support ECN, we could be > > loosing more than we gain. > > How do you know this is the reason for the lost SYN?
We don't.
> What if other things caused the SYN to be dropped by some > intermediate site?
Then we would be assuming the host didn't support ECN, when in fact, it may well do.
> All the workarounds for ECN blackholes violate the protocol and > cause more problems than they solve.
Which is exactly what I what I was providing an example of.
> That is why we refuse to implement them, and this is why the ECN > RFCs mark the "suggested workarounds" as optional not required to > implement.
Errr, so we agree then. Cool.
John. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |