Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:16:55 +0100 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, rpaulo@freebsd.org, Mark Atkinson <atkin901@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: panic: tcp_addoptions: TCP options too long w/ with TCP_SIGNATURE support Message-ID: <47F2D077.3000503@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <47F29DE0.6080500@freebsd.org> References: <fstmm9$oci$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080401191246.GA1491@fnop.net> <fsu2c6$6iv$1@ger.gmane.org> <47F29471.10901@freebsd.org> <47F29DE0.6080500@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dontcha just hate broken vendor NAT? Yes, it seems reasonable that SACK is the sacrificial victim. Considering folk normally configure TCP-MD5 between routers which are usually directly connected on the same switch, doing away with SACK should be fine. Funny, I was staring at that define moments ago whilst debugging a totally unrelated piece of code in a different language. Good stuff.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47F2D077.3000503>