Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 22 May 2006 14:06:28 -0700 | | From | Rick Jones <> | | Subject | Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?) |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > On Llu, 2006-05-22 at 11:48 -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > >>ID of zero again? I thought that went away years ago? Anyway, given >>the number of "helpful" devices out there willing to clear the DF bit, >>fragment and forward, perhaps always setting the IP ID to 0, even if DF >>is set, isn't such a good idea? > > > Any device that clears DF is so terminally broken that you've already > lost the battle the moment you bought it.
Perhaps, but still, always setting the IP datagram ID to the same value even with the DF bit set seems contrary to the "conservative in what we send" that is so often brought-forth as a reason a stack behaves the way it does.
rick jones - 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/
|  |