From owner-freebsd-current Mon Sep 7 14:00:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04644 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 14:00:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from myrddin.demon.co.uk (myrddin.demon.co.uk [158.152.54.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04605 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 14:00:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dom@myrddin.demon.co.uk) Received: from localhost (myrddin.demon.co.uk) [127.0.0.1] by myrddin.demon.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zFvfl-0000E6-00; Mon, 7 Sep 1998 08:25:13 +0100 To: ben@rosengart.com Cc: Archie Cobbs , sthaug@nethelp.no, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should FreeBSD-3.0 ship with RFC 1644 (T/TCP) turned off by default? References: From: Dom Mitchell In-Reply-To: Snob Art Genre's message of "Fri, 4 Sep 1998 20:42:33 -0400 (EDT)" X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 08:25:13 +0100 Message-Id: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Snob Art Genre 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