Subject: RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help...

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:16:58 +1200

I'm not in a campaign to promote ECN, or anything... I'm saying that ISOC
web site is not reachable if you enable ECN, which RFC793(standard) or
RFC3168(proposed Standard) talk about.

I don't want to talk about what is a standard or what is not... What is
compliant or not...

Will there be anybody to volunteer and fix the routers leading to ISOC web
site, mailing lists, e-mail addresses and so on?

This is what my message is all about. Please IETF members in Washington DC,
Area, please give a call to ISOC and offer some help...

This is embarrassing, that's all....

Cheers.

Franck Martin
Network and Database Development Officer
SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
Fiji
E-mail: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
Web site: http://www.sopac.org/
<http://www.sopac.org/> Support FMaps: http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/
<http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/> 
Certificate: https://www.sopac.org/ssl/ 

This e-mail is intended for its addresses only. Do not forward this e-mail
without approval. The views expressed in this e-mail may not be necessarily
the views of SOPAC.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2002 3:02 
To: Christian Huitema
Cc: ietf
Subject: RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help...

Yo Christian!

Actually, RFC 3168 has nothing to do with it.  The issue is RFC 793.

RFC 793 is a "Standard", not a "Proposed Standard"

RFC 793 lists the bits later used by ECN as "Reserved".  Computer programs
are supposed to ignore "Reserved" bits unless they really know what
they are doing.

If a router treats bits in the header as required by the STANDARD RFC
793 then RFC 3168 will cause no harm.    I do not have a copy of Baker
handy, but I bet it agrees.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
	[email-masked]  Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Christian Huitema wrote:

> So, if you are on a campaign to promote ECN, then maybe you should first
> try to promote this specification to the next standard level... You may
> also want to take a stab at revising the "Requirements for IP Version 4
> Routers"; the last edition, RFC 1812 by Fred Baker, dates from June
> 1995.

---

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:18:49 -0700

I don't see why this is embarrasing.  I have no problems with people
setting up filtering rules that say DENY-ALL accept packets that I
EXPLICITLY know what every bit does, and I want to allow it...

That said, ECN is a relatively recent addition to the suite and I
wouldn't expect all firewalling rules to be setup to use it (I believe
that some of the bits involved have been used by other experimental
protocols for other things).  For this reason I don't think this
behavior is as bad or embarrassing as you think it is.  

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Franck Martin
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:17 PM
To: 'Gary E. Miller'; Christian Huitema
Cc: ietf
Subject: RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help...

I'm not in a campaign to promote ECN, or anything... I'm saying that
ISOC web site is not reachable if you enable ECN, which RFC793(standard)
or RFC3168(proposed Standard) talk about.

Will there be anybody to volunteer and fix the routers leading to ISOC
web site, mailing lists, e-mail addresses and so on?

This is what my message is all about. Please IETF members in Washington
DC, Area, please give a call to ISOC and offer some help...

Cheers.

Franck Martin

This e-mail is intended for its addresses only. Do not forward this
e-mail without approval. The views expressed in this e-mail may not be
necessarily the views of SOPAC.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2002 3:02 
To: Christian Huitema
Cc: ietf
Subject: RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help...

Yo Christian!

RFC 793 lists the bits later used by ECN as "Reserved".  Computer
programs are supposed to ignore "Reserved" bits unless they really know
what they are doing.

RGDS
GARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
	[email-masked]  Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Christian Huitema wrote:

> So, if you are on a campaign to promote ECN, then maybe you should 
> first try to promote this specification to the next standard level... 
> You may also want to take a stab at revising the "Requirements for IP 
> Version 4 Routers"; the last edition, RFC 1812 by Fred Baker, dates 
> from June 1995.

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:34:35 -0400

>site, mailing lists, e-mail addresses and so on?

RFC3168 is dated September 2001. That's pretty recent. It is likely many 
routers have not even been rebooted since then, let alone been updated to 
new software revisions. Assuming a new software revision is available that 
supports ECN, that new revision would have to be tested and qualified 
before being deployed. Sites which insist on ECN will be disappointed for a 
long time to come.

That said, such routers really shouldn't choke on the packets. I would 
guess it's dropping the packets due to explicit configuration, though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        [email-masked]
Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com

---

From: "Gary E. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:21:03 -0700 (PDT)

Yo Daniel!

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Daniel Senie wrote:

> RFC3168 is dated September 2001. That's pretty recent.

RFC 793 is dated September 1981.  If the routers/firewalls handled
packets per RFC 793 there would be no problem.  Just set them to zero
and pass them along.

The reserved bits were first used for ECN in RFC 2481 dated January
1999.  If the firewalls handled packets per RFC 2481 there would be no
problem.

RFC 3168 refined the handling of ECN in September 2001.  If the
firewalls handled packets per RFC 3168 there would be no problem.

It is only those router/firewalls that IGNORED all advice on what to do
with those bits since 1981 that have a problem.

RGDS
GARY