Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*RFC\s+iptables\s+target\s+for\s+selectively\s+removing\s+ECN\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*RFC\s+iptables\s+target\s+for\s+selectively\s+removing\s+ECN\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. RFC iptables target for selectively removing ECN (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:40:47 +0100; I've written a small iptables target for the iptables 'mangle' chain, which allows users to remove the ECN bits of the IPv4 header ::on a per-rule basis. It forces the ECN bits of the IPv4 header to; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00108.html (8,999 bytes)
2. Re: RFC iptables target for selectively removing ECN (score: 1): Author: Sebastian <sebastian+list02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:47:21 +0100; So this target is doing what is described in section 18.1.13 of RFC 3168. You might run into a problem when an upstream router marked the packet instead of dropping it. By setting the codepoint to 0; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00112.html (8,606 bytes)
3. Re: RFC iptables target for selectively removing ECN (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:12:35 +0100; Mh, I should have read the full RFC :(. Ok. Well, we could restrict the usage of the iptables target to the LOCAL_OUT hook, but this would limit its possibilities. I don't need to clear the ECT codep; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00114.html (9,565 bytes)
4. Re: RFC iptables target for selectively removing ECN (score: 1): Author: Andreas Ferber <aferber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:44:56 +0100; Yes. The ECN IP header bits are set by intermediate routers which are not required to examine the TCP header to tell if ECN should be used for this flow (e.g. in load-balancing or failover situations; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00115.html (9,345 bytes)
5. Re: RFC iptables target for selectively removing ECN (score: 1): Author: Sebastian Zimmermann <sz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:37:03 +0100; The RFC states that SYN packets MUST NOT set ECT. So when the TCP connection is initiated, the ECN-capability is negotiated only by the two TCP flags ECE and CWR. If you clear those, ECN cannot be es; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00116.html (9,050 bytes)
6. RFC iptables target for selectively removing ECN (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:40:47 +0100; Hi! I've written a small iptables target for the iptables 'mangle' chain, which allows users to remove the ECN bits of the IPv4 header ::on a per-rule basis. It forces the ECN bits of the IPv4 header; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00229.html (9,014 bytes)
7. Re: RFC iptables target for selectively removing ECN (score: 1): Author: Sebastian <sebastian+list02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:47:21 +0100; Hi! So this target is doing what is described in section 18.1.13 of RFC 3168. You might run into a problem when an upstream router marked the packet instead of dropping it. By setting the codepoint t; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00233.html (8,664 bytes)
8. Re: RFC iptables target for selectively removing ECN (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:12:35 +0100; Mh, I should have read the full RFC :(. Ok. Well, we could restrict the usage of the iptables target to the LOCAL_OUT hook, but this would limit its possibilities. I don't need to clear the ECT codep; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00235.html (9,763 bytes)
9. Re: RFC iptables target for selectively removing ECN (score: 1): Author: Andreas Ferber <aferber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:44:56 +0100; Yes. The ECN IP header bits are set by intermediate routers which are not required to examine the TCP header to tell if ECN should be used for this flow (e.g. in load-balancing or failover situations; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00236.html (9,525 bytes)
10. Re: RFC iptables target for selectively removing ECN (score: 1): Author: Sebastian Zimmermann <sz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:37:03 +0100; The RFC states that SYN packets MUST NOT set ECT. So when the TCP connection is initiated, the ECN-capability is negotiated only by the two TCP flags ECE and CWR. If you clear those, ECN cannot be es; /archives/netdev/2002-02/msg00237.html (9,187 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]