From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Herbert Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] tou: Transports over UDP - part I Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:46:11 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1466099522-690741-1-git-send-email-tom@herbertland.com> <20160623.034004.1518087003165708123.davem@davemloft.net> <576B94DA.7070804@nod.at> <576DA7C4.7040108@hpe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Richard Weinberger , David Miller , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Kernel Team To: Rick Jones Return-path: Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:36411 "EHLO mail-io0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751183AbcFXVqM (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:46:12 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f170.google.com with SMTP id s63so106328508ioi.3 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:46:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <576DA7C4.7040108@hpe.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Rick Jones wrote: > On 06/24/2016 02:12 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >> The client OS side is only part of the story. Middlebox intrusion at >> L4 is also a major issue we need to address. The "failure" of TFO is a >> good case study. Both the upgrade issues on clients and the tendency >> for some middleboxes to drop SYN packets with data have together >> severely hindered what otherwise should have been straightforward and >> useful feature to deploy. > > > How would you define "severely?" Has it actually been more severe than for > say ECN? Or it was for say SACK or PAWS? > ECN is probably even a bigger disappointment in terms of seeing deployment :-( From http://ecn.ethz.ch/ecn-pam15.pdf: "Even though ECN was standardized in 2001, and it is widely implemented in end-systems, it is barely deployed. This is due to a history of problems with severely broken middleboxes shortly after standardization, which led to connectivity failure and guidance to leave ECN disabled." SACK and PAWS seemed to have faired a little better I believe. Tom > rick jones >