Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 07:57:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: ben@rosengart.com Cc: archie@whistle.com, sthaug@nethelp.no, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should FreeBSD-3.0 ship with RFC 1644 (T/TCP) turned off by Message-ID: <199809050757.AAA00885@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.02.9809042036340.20778-100000@echonyc.com> from "Snob Art Genre" at Sep 4, 98 08:42:33 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. I was not there at the time, but... The problem is not the options, per se, but the fact that some systems failed to mplement correct option negotiation, per RFC 793, for previously non-existant options. Livingston Portmasters were one known offender. The result of sending one of these negotiation requests through such a system was a result of all control bits lit, which is *not* what you want, since some of those bits have definitions and need to be off under certain circumstances (like, oh, say "ack,fin" or "syn"). Thus you would actualy puke bad equipment into non-operability. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the payload in the packets themselves, only the munged headers. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809050757.AAA00885>