From owner-freebsd-current Fri Sep 4 17:44:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA07395 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:44:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from echonyc.com (echonyc.com [198.67.15.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA07390 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 17:44:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from benedict@echonyc.com) Received: from localhost (benedict@localhost) by echonyc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA25537; Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:42:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:42:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Snob Art Genre Reply-To: ben@rosengart.com To: Archie Cobbs cc: sthaug@nethelp.no, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should FreeBSD-3.0 ship with RFC 1644 (T/TCP) turned off by default? In-Reply-To: <199809042125.OAA27214@bubba.whistle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Archie Cobbs wrote: > The first version of the Whistle InterJet shipped with these > extensions turned on by default. That caused problems for a handful > of customers because of bogus equipment on the Internet, so we turned > them off in later versions. Was it both the extensions causing problems, or just the RFC 1323 ones? I have had problems with those, but not with the T/TCP extensions. If I recall correctly, RFC 1323 covers protection against wrapped sequence numbers. Anyone with a fast enough link to need that at this point probably knows enough to enable it themselves (and they're probably paying their upstream enough to pay for equipment that can handle RFC 1323 without breaking). Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message