Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:41:48 +0100
From:      Rui Paulo <rpaulo@fnop.net>
To:        "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Killing IPTOS_CE and IPTOS_ECT
Message-ID:  <46DDB4FC.5050505@fnop.net>
In-Reply-To: <46DDB153.6040909@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <46DCB831.3030207@fnop.net> <46DD59F9.1080107@freebsd.org> <46DDA265.2090500@fnop.net> <46DDB153.6040909@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> Rui Paulo wrote:
>> Well, I was asking for comments regarding on the usage of these flags. 
>> I was hoping to commit ip.h along with TCP ECN.
>>
>> This doesn't really need to be before the branch, I think.
> 
> Looks fine to me. ECN would be a useful feature to have. AFAIK nothing 
> else uses these flags.

I have TCP ECN support diff's against CURRENT. I just need to test that 
everything works as expected. I'll mail -net after that.

> Although I do remember it being possible to fingerprint Solaris boxes 
> based on their response to the ECN Echo, this was around 6 years ago.
> 
> I second Andre's request for a full unified diff if you want it to go in 
> ASAP.

Ok. Thanks.

Regards.
-- 
Rui Paulo



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46DDB4FC.5050505>