From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Aug 10 15:33: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from netplex.com.au (adsl-63-207-30-186.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.207.30.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B9837BB05; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:32:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from netplex.com.au (peter@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netplex.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA87023; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:32:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Message-Id: <200008102232.PAA87023@netplex.com.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Warner Losh Cc: Nik Clayton , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Turning tcp_extensions back on? In-Reply-To: <200008102207.QAA77895@harmony.village.org> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:32:24 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Warner Losh wrote: > In message <20000810141253.A2550@kilt.nothing-going-on.org> Nik Clayton write s: > : NetCraft can send out with the reports which explains why FreeBSD doesn't > : figure very well in the report. Alternatively, if it's not a problem > : any more then we should turn them on. ] > > We should prepare a report anyway, given the number of systems that > are deployed. It is my understanding that now Linux has RFC1323 support implemented and turned on by default now. I have long believed that we should have persisted with it on but this would be a good reason to revisit this. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message