From owner-freebsd-net Mon Jan 18 15:28:50 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA00670 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:28:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from implode.root.com (root.com [208.221.12.98]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA00664 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:28:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from root@implode.root.com) Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by implode.root.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA29997; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:26:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901182326.PAA29997@implode.root.com> To: Erik Moe cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD and RFC 1644 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:30:12 CST." <36A3A7E4.8CE869A@concentric.net> From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 15:25:59 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >My main interest in this problem at this point is simply curiosity. I >have glanced through rfc 1644 looking for answers, but if they are >there, they simply don't smack me in the face. I can accept the fact >that my service provider may have their network configured in such a way >that it breaks the combination of FreeBSD and rfc 1644, but can someone >out there tell me why this combination might break? Some terminal servers are known to not grok TCP options correctly - those from Annex come to mind, but I recall that there were others. Anyway, if all the packets with TCP options get dropped or mangled, then it should be pretty obvious why it doesn't work. :-) -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message