On 15-dec-03, at 14:03, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Your definition of broken is a little off. I would think the broken
implementation is the one that misunderstood the definition.
"reserved" as i have been enlightened privately has been clearly
defined at IETF as:
a) Must be set to zero on transmis
- Original Message -
From: "jamal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 23:34, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> jamal writes:
>
> > So the Linux decision was infact a very good one. An award of some form
> > is in order.
>
> Maybe Microsoft will be inspired to do things the same way: it can
> change its implementations in order to break 10% of all
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 05:34:53 +0100, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The main contention seems to be the system with the problem. If it's
> Linux, it's not a bug, it's feature. If it's Microsoft, it's not a
> feature, it's a bug.
Linux could at least stand on the claim that i
jamal writes:
> So the Linux decision was infact a very good one. An award of some form
> is in order.
Maybe Microsoft will be inspired to do things the same way: it can
change its implementations in order to break 10% of all sites around the
world, and when anyone complains, it can say that it w
> If I have a system that does everything I require, I don't need
> improvements.
So your currently requirements are exactly the same as all the other users of the
Internet ? I find it hard to believe that your requirements are exactly the same as
mine, and I'm only one of the other approxima
Mark Smith writes:
> I think you might be missing the point. ECN only breaks when used
> with previous *bad* implementations of the relevant RFCs.
Perhaps my point isn't clear: ECN implementations prevent communication,
rather than enhance it. I don't see what advantage ECN provides, but it
has b
On 12-dec-03, at 22:24, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Does that mean that Path MTU was badly designed, because it failed to
take into account stupid firewalls?
Path MTU disovery was implemented very poorly because implementations
tend expect certain functionality in routers, and usually don't recover
whe
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 09:01:09PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> The problem is that RFC 3168 postdates all the RFCs that came before it,
> and when something needs to be compatible with real-world systems that
> are not all instantly and simultaneously upgraded, it needs to behave in
> a wa
Theodore Ts'o writes:
> To continue quoting from RFC 3360, there were some good reasons stated
> in that document for why reasonable implementors might not choose to
> implement the workaround:
>
>* The work-arounds would result in ECN-capable hosts not responding
> properly to the first
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:06:06PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> I also don't see why a firewall would drop packets just because reserved
> bits are set, although I can see why it might be a configurable option
> for the most paranoid users.
There are a lot of really dumb, dumb, dumb firewa
Scott Bradner writes:
> woe be to new applications through such a firewall
It's important to understand that the Internet is not monolithic, and no
matter what the latest and greatest standards may be, there will always
be parts of the Net that run older software. Expecting the entire Net
to upg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The problem is that the most common failure mode is *not*
> getting an RST back, but getting NOTHING back because
> some squirrely firewall between here and there is silently
> dropping packets with bits it doesn't understand.
Ah ... that would definitely be a bug with
Scott Bradner writes:
> it's not "reserved" -- the ECN bits are assigned by RFC 3168
In that case, the only issue is one of backward compatibility. Some
sites may not be conformant with recent changes to the TCP/IP standards.
The smart TCP/IP implementation allows for this. Which in turn means
14 matches
Mail list logo
