[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: hotmail not dealing with ECN
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Why? Why not just zero them, and get both security and compatibility...
> Eeek! NO!!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
> For ECN that would have worked, but that doesn't mean that something
> couldn't have been implimented there that wouldn't have worked that way..
> I think that older Checkpoint firewalls (perhaps current?) zeroed out SACK
> on 'hide nat'ed connections. This causes unreasonable stalls for users on
> SACK enabled clients. Not cool.

If both SACK and SACK_PERMITTED were zeroed out, the clients would
negotiate non-SACK connections and everythings ok. A performance
disadvantage relative to allowing SACK, but that's true of ECN as well.

-- Jamie
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.056 / U:2.692 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site