Well all of this has been said on this thread here allready, but I'll repeat it never the less to get the facts straight.
Zitiere Dominik Kubla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 05:30:12PM +0200, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote: > But the whole discussion here is folly. The whole thing has been > discussed on linux-kernel by people far more knowlegable in this things > than the average debian developer. I think we should follow the > conclusions from that discussions: enable ECN by default and every > non-compliant device be dammned. However you, or whoever on the kernel lists might argue, the default in Linus' kernel sources is off! Please check it yourself. > Mind you that we are only talking about firewalls here (and all of the > can be fixed by firmware upgrades, or at least they should). Fact is some aren't. > Ordinary routers have no business altering packets passing through and > ordinary hosts have to ignore "reserved bits" they don't know about. > Routers doing NAT are to be treated as firewalls. If they are broken: > replace them. They will have more bugs that this one anyway. You are wellcome to be without a fault. Unfortunately a lot of HW/SW isn't. And often enough it's not up to the user to replace it. He just has to live with it. I think Craig Sanders and Anthony Towns said it best: Craig: > the fact is that there is no possibility of harm if ECN is disabled > in the kernel, while there IS possibility of harm if it is enabled. > therefore it should be disabled by default. Anthony: > I'm not sure what you mean by "idealism" but surely it's obvious the > solution that's closest to ideal for the most users should be chosen as > the default. *t
