Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:51:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:51:57 -0500 Received: from rth.ninka.net ([216.101.162.244]:36523 "EHLO rth.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:51:57 -0500 Subject: Re: RFC3168, section 6.1.1.1 - ECN and retransmit of SYN From: "David S. Miller" To: John Bradford Cc: "Zephaniah E\\. Hull" , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200302212125.h1LLPgxE001759@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> References: <200302212125.h1LLPgxE001759@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 21 Feb 2003 16:47:02 -0800 Message-Id: <1045874822.25411.3.camel@rth.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1041 Lines: 23 On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 13:25, John Bradford wrote: > 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? What if other things caused the SYN to be dropped by some intermediate site? All the workarounds for ECN blackholes violate the protocol and cause more problems than they solve. 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. - 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/