Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (morespecifically, WCCP?)

From: Rick Jones
Date: Mon May 22 2006 - 17:06:03 EST

Alan Cox wrote:
On Llu, 2006-05-22 at 11:48 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:

ID of zero again? I thought that went away years ago? Anyway, given the number of "helpful" devices out there willing to clear the DF bit, fragment and forward, perhaps always setting the IP ID to 0, even if DF is set, isn't such a good idea?

Any device that clears DF is so terminally broken that you've already
lost the battle the moment you bought it.

Perhaps, but still, always setting the IP datagram ID to the same value even with the DF bit set seems contrary to the "conservative in what we send" that is so often brought-forth as a reason a stack behaves the way it does.

rick jones
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at