On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 01:37:02AM -0500, Scott Dier wrote:
> * Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010905 20:17]:
> > the correct solution is to NOT compile ECN support into the distribution
> > kernels. that's a choice that should be left up to the individual system
>
> So, lets fix one problem b
Thanks for caring Anthony!
Zitiere Anthony Towns :
> I'm not sure what you mean by "idealism" but surely it's obvious the
> solution that's closest to ideal for the most users should be chosen as
> the default. We've currently had what options?
>
> 1) Disable ECN in the kernel, and let people
> Another option, which would require a minor patch to the kernel, would be
> to have ECN default to disabled even when compiled into the kernel (and
> thus require an explit 'echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn' to enable).
> This'd be analagous to the current behaviour with IP forwarding.
Eduard
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 01:37:02AM -0500, Scott Dier wrote:
> So, lets fix one problem by creating another problem! ECN isn't there
> anymore!
So? Neither is a lot of options. You can recompile a kernel just
as well as anyone else.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http:/
* Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010905 20:17]:
> the correct solution is to NOT compile ECN support into the distribution
> kernels. that's a choice that should be left up to the individual system
So, lets fix one problem by creating another problem! ECN isn't there
anymore!
What if some us
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 06:30:27PM -0700, Neil T. Spring wrote:
> My point is: the maintainers have spoken. If we're going
> to make progress in helping users behind broken equipment,
> we're going to have to find another way that doesn't offend
> Herbert, Craig, and Anthony's sense of idealism.
> On 05-Sep-01, 18:14 (CDT), "Neil T. Spring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. A configuration option, when you know concensus on this
> > list is that there will be none; and that the default will
> > be on.
> No, I don't think that's the concensus. I agree that the kernel package
> can't change
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 04:32:42PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> if ! grep /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn /etc/sysctl.conf >/dev/null;
> then echo sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn=0 >> /etc/sysctl.conf
> fi
>
> to the kernel-image-2.4.x postinst.
no, this is broken and evil. kernel-im
On 05-Sep-01, 18:14 (CDT), "Neil T. Spring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. A configuration option, when you know concensus on this
> list is that there will be none; and that the default will
> be on.
No, I don't think that's the concensus. I agree that the kernel package
can't change another p
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 03:19:01PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 06:02:10PM +0200, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> > So since netbase does not want to be the proper place, a better
> > fix/workaround (I'm sincerely trying hard not to be ironic!) would be to
> > use debconf wi
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 06:02:10PM +0200, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> So since netbase does not want to be the proper place, a better
> fix/workaround (I'm sincerely trying hard not to be ironic!) would be to
> use debconf with a default value of "0" and to inform/ask the user about
> it when i
Wow. Somebody makes a one line suggestion (which seems
like a good idea) and you twist it into:
1. An incorrect statement. "ecn is a routing
protocol." rotfl. Find a computer science textbook before
you post to the list again.
2. A configuration option, when you know concensus on this
list is th
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 04:32:42PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>
> ) then it's the kernel-image package that needs to make sure it's runing
> in a sane environment. So *please* can we add something like:
>
> if ! grep /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn /etc/sysctl.conf >/dev/null;
>
T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> > But anyway - I agree that Debian should not be too conservative
> > with regard to new networking technologies, so disabling ECN by
> > default is not something I'd like to see happen. Give the user some
> > short explanation and let him make the decision himself,
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Remco van de Meent wrote:
> But anyway - I agree that Debian should not be too conservative with
> regard to new networking technologies, so disabling ECN by default is
> not something I'd like to see happen. Give the user some short
> explanation and let him make the decision
Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> Routers aren't forced to support ECN (although it's in their
> interest) but they aren't allowed to drop ECN-flagged TCP packets.
>
> If you can't access a site, *they* need to fix their buggy router to be
> ECN-tolerant. If they don't do so, they're violating RFC 793.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> Routers aren't forced to support ECN (although it's in their interest) but
> they
> aren't allowed to drop ECN-flagged TCP packets.
>
> If you can't access a site, *they* need to fix their buggy router to be
> ECN-tolerant. If they don't do so, the
I, for one, am very thankful for this thread. I could no longer
connect to some sites which I used in daily work collaborations
for some time now. Turns out it's since an upgrade from 2.2 to
2.4. I have now disabled this option in the 2.4 kernel and now
connect again.
Thanks!
(Yes, it's info
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 04:32:42PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > severity 110892 wishlist
> > thanks
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 02:42:23PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> > > # On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 06:31:19 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > # > On Sat
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Scott Dier wrote:
> working fine. The really broken part is firewalls and tcp/ip stacks on
> the internet that do things to TCP that they shouldn't and break your
> experience.
>
> Go bugreport those instead.
Never mind the users: they will be happy to spend two days debuging
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> So *please* can we add something like:
>
> if ! grep /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn /etc/sysctl.conf >/dev/null;
> then echo sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn=0 >> /etc/sysctl.conf
> fi
>
> to the kernel-image-2.4.x postinst.
Which of course wi
> critical makes unrelated software on the system (or the whole system)
>break, [...]
The user experience is broken, not the software. The software is
working fine. The really broken part is firewalls and tcp/ip stacks on
the internet that do things to TCP that they shouldn't and b
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 04:32:42PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> >From the docu:
>
> critical makes unrelated software on the system (or the whole system)
>break, [...]
>
> This is *exacly* what happens after an update from a vanilla 2.2.x kernel
> to a 2.4. Some sites plain disape
* Tomas Pospisek
| ) then it's the kernel-image package that needs to make sure it's runing
| in a sane environment. So *please* can we add something like:
|
| if ! grep /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn /etc/sysctl.conf >/dev/null;
| then echo sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn=0 >> /etc/sysctl.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> severity 110892 wishlist
> thanks
>
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 02:42:23PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> > # On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 06:31:19 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > # > On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 12:33:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> > # > > I don't know
severity 110892 wishlist
thanks
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 02:42:23PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> # On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 06:31:19 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> # > On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 12:33:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> # > > I don't know if this is the right place to assign the bug.
It's n
26 matches
Mail list logo
