Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Why? Why not just zero them, and get both security and compatibility...
>
> Eeek! NO!!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
> For ECN that would have worked, but that doesn't mean that something
> couldn't have been implimented there that wouldn't have worked that way..
>
> I think that older Checkpoint firewalls (perhaps current?) zeroed out SACK
> on 'hide nat'ed connections. This causes unreasonable stalls for users on
> SACK enabled clients. Not cool.
If both SACK and SACK_PERMITTED were zeroed out, the clients would
negotiate non-SACK connections and everythings ok. A performance
disadvantage relative to allowing SACK, but that's true of ECN as well.
-- Jamie
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 21:00:28 EST