On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 12:39:13AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There's enough people out there confused *without* Debian setting a
> > default value like this;
>
> Debian doesn't.
Read the script. It does. You have eyes. Use them. It's that bloody s
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 07:28:38AM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> That could explain a few problems that I have been having while attempting to
> download from the net through my Windows clients,
Well, Windows and most routers do not have a problem. Only large Firewalls,
notably PIX needs a OS Upgra
> Would it be recomended to execute an IPTables script via the networking init
> script?
I am starting it via a pre-up statement from /etc/network/interfaces.
Rene
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 06:22:53AM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> Evil? I though ECN would be a good thing since my machine acts as a DNS
> server,
> SAMBA server and Masquerading server for a small LAN. Was I wrong in my
> assumtion?
Currently some Firewalls on the Internet will block ECN Connecti
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 07:28:38AM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > Well, there's been a raging debate on linux-kernel about this. Basically,
> > some Cisco routers are broken, as the (outdated) RFC specified that this
> > field (the one for ECN) was "reserved", so Cisco took
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 07:28:38AM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > Well, there's been a raging debate on linux-kernel about this. Basically,
> > some Cisco routers are broken, as the (outdated) RFC specified that this
> > field (the one for ECN) was "reserved", so Cisco took
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Well, there's been a raging debate on linux-kernel about this. Basically,
> some Cisco routers are broken, as the (outdated) RFC specified that this
> field (the one for ECN) was "reserved", so Cisco took that to mean "must be
> zero". Hence, when you turn ECN on, a lot of Ci
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 06:22:53AM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 03:42:32AM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> > > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn
> >
> > What sort of evil is this?
>
> Evil? I though ECN would be a good thing since my machine ac
Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 03:42:32AM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn
>
> What sort of evil is this?
Evil? I though ECN would be a good thing since my machine acts as a DNS server,
SAMBA server and Masquerading server for a small LAN. Was
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's enough people out there confused *without* Debian setting a
> default value like this;
Debian doesn't.
--
James - [still idly wondering where the developer part kicks in]
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 12:27:03AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 03:42:32AM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> > > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn
> >
> > What sort of evil is this?
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Stone
> > Linux Kern
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 03:42:32AM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn
>
> What sort of evil is this?
>
> --
> Daniel Stone
> Linux Kernel Developer
^^
Surely a "Linux Kernel Developer" such as
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 03:42:32AM -0600, Stefan Srdic wrote:
> echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn
What sort of evil is this?
--
Daniel Stone
Linux Kernel Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.1
G!>CS d s++:- a C++ ULS$>B P L+++> E+(joe)>+++
I've made some changes to the networking init file. My primary goal was
to
increase network throughput and to increase system security as well. So
far I've made
some progress but have also ran into several questions that need some
anwsers.
I found the original /etc/init.d/networking script easy to
14 matches
Mail list logo
