[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-05-22 23:09    [W:0.289 / U:4.776 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site