Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)

On Llu, 2006-05-22 at 11:48 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> ID of zero again?  I thought that went away years ago?  Anyway, given 
> the number of "helpful" devices out there willing to clear the DF bit, 
> fragment and forward, perhaps always setting the IP ID to 0, even if DF 
> is set, isn't such a good idea?

Any device that clears DF is so terminally broken that you've already
lost the battle the moment you bought it. 

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
  - From: Rick Jones <[email protected]>

References:
- Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
  - From: Paul P Komkoff Jr <[email protected]>
- Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
  - From: Vlad Yasevich <[email protected]>
- Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
  - From: Rick Jones <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Add user taint flag
Next by Date: Re: Linux Kernel Source Compression
Previous by thread: Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
Next by thread: Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]