Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:36:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Owens <owensc@enc.edu> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TCP extensions breaking TCP. Message-ID: <Pine.FBS.3.93.960919082848.4630C-100000@dingo.enc.edu>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@freebsd.org> said:
>"Daniel O'Callaghan" wrote in message ID
><Pine.BSF.3.91.960919183407.3641J-100000@panda.hilink.com.au>:
>> If people would like to test out the other machine (still has extensions
>> on, I believe) it is at pixel.planetx.com.au - try telnetting to its
>> smtp port. One of my machines which has extensions on, and which won't
>> talk to pixel, is tutu.schools.net.au.
>
>>From a quick traceroute:
>
>12 webnet.gw.au (139.130.3.222) 285.913 ms 290.420 ms 282.206 ms
>13 annex0.webnet.com.au (203.8.105.10) 287.745 ms 310.981 ms 285.721 ms
>14 pixel.planetx.com.au (203.16.241.66) 460.288 ms 419.488 ms 421.294 ms
>
>(thank God for people with nice naming conventions)
>
>Annex's (older) TCP implimentation is known to barf on RFC 1323 and
>1644. Either update the OS on the Annex or turn off the TCP options
>support.
Related Question: If I'm running a service that its important that ANY
internet host can reach (ex. a mail server), should TCP extensions be
turned off to ensure compatibility with any devices that may have older
TCP implementations (such as we've seen above) ?
Or, are such situations so rare that its better to leave them on?
Thanks,
---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Owens Email: owensc@enc.edu
"I read somewhere to learn is to
Information Technology Services remember... and I've learned that
Eastern Nazarene College we've all forgot..." - King's X
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.FBS.3.93.960919082848.4630C-100000>