[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFC3168, section - ECN and retransmit of SYN
> > 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.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.053 / U:4.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site