> > What if the first SYN packet, or the response to it is lost, (which is
> > more possible on congested links, which is when ECN would be most
> > useful), and we disable ECN - then we loose out on functionality we
> > could have, and the work around is actually detremental to
> > performance. Once 99% of internet hosts support ECN, we could be
> > loosing more than we gain.
>
> How do you know this is the reason for the lost SYN?
We don't.
> What if other things caused the SYN to be dropped by some
> intermediate site?
Then we would be assuming the host didn't support ECN, when in fact,
it may well do.
> All the workarounds for ECN blackholes violate the protocol and
> cause more problems than they solve.
Which is exactly what I what I was providing an example of.
> That is why we refuse to implement them, and this is why the ECN
> RFCs mark the "suggested workarounds" as optional not required to
> implement.
Errr, so we agree then. Cool.
John.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:35 EST