Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 08:25:13 +0100 From: Dom Mitchell <dom@myrddin.demon.co.uk> To: ben@rosengart.com Cc: Archie Cobbs <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 default? Message-ID: <E0zFvfl-0000E6-00.qmail@myrddin.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Snob Art Genre's message of "Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:42:33 -0400 (EDT)" References: <Pine.GSO.4.02.9809042036340.20778-100000@echonyc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Snob Art Genre <benedict@echonyc.com> writes: > 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). I saw similiar things, trying to talk to a Solaris box over an ISDN link. Turning off 1644 extensions made no difference at all, but turning off the 1323 extensions made login about 5 time quicker. -- ``Quick, beam that cheese to sickbay!'' -- BT 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?E0zFvfl-0000E6-00.qmail>