Subject: Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break
	udp	(more specifically, WCCP?)
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>,
       Paul P Komkoff Jr <i@stingr.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <4472078D.8010706@hp.com>
References: <20060520191153.GV3776@stingr.net>
	 <20060520140434.2139c31b.akpm@osdl.org>
	 <1148322152.15322.299.camel@galen.zko.hp.com>  <4472078D.8010706@hp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 22:11:33 +0100
Message-Id: <1148332293.17376.114.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 674
Lines: 16

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. 

Alan

-
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/