On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Fred Baker wrote:
> At 12:16 AM 1/13/01 -0800, Alhussein Abouzeid wrote:
> >I don't see that point coming up with a lot of option proposals, like,
> >say, ECN?
>
> ECN has no options. It has two bits in the IP header and two bits in the
> TCP header, which are already there and are not used.
Why not use one of them for the spoofing/no-spoofing signal:) Is ECN more
important? You bet it is.
ECN *is* an option. TCP may or may not use it. It requires support from
the routers. ENS (Explicitly No Spoofing) can also be a similar option?
>
> And yes, it comes up about every time someone decides they want an option.
True.
> You can define them all you want, but plan on messages containing options
> getting dropped by popular ISPs.
>
I don't think this is the issue. A lot of popular ISP's have not
implemented ECN anyway, but there is no doubt ECN will soon enough
become a standard.
The issue is whether there are considerable gains that call for defining
and using such a bit within the IETF standards.
And to drive this point home, I really don't think that the reluctance of
such "ISP's" to improve their "IS" should ever be a factor in the
evolution of protocols.
-Hussein.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 13 2001 - 05:05:20 EST