Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN

From: Brian May (bam@snoopy.apana.org.au)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 22:03:55 EST

Next message: David Ford: "Re: ECN and other sites"
Previous message: Michael B. Trausch: "ECN and other sites"
Next in thread: Bernd Eckenfels: "Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

>>>>> "David" == David S Miller <davem@redhat.com> writes:

David> It says "reserved for future use, must be zero".

Poor choice of wording.

If I was implementing this, I would assume that any packet with a
non-zero value is illegal by this RFC, and act accordingly.

I would assume that this "future use" may require handling of the
packet in a non-standard way, and packets with a non-zero value cannot
be used until the "future use" is better defined.

Also, the above statement should really clarify how routers should
cope if they receive a non-zero value. Drop it, pass it through
unchanged, or set it to zero?

-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: David Ford: "Re: ECN and other sites"
Previous message: Michael B. Trausch: "ECN and other sites"
Next in thread: Bernd Eckenfels: "Re: hotmail not dealing with ECN"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 21:00:24 EST