Subject: Re: Was change to ip_push_pending_frames intended to break udp (more specifically, WCCP?)

From: Rick Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 14:06:28 -0700

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Llu, 2006-05-22 at 11:48 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> 
>>ID of zero again?  I thought that went away years ago?  Anyway, given 
>>the number of "helpful" devices out there willing to clear the DF bit, 
>>fragment and forward, perhaps always setting the IP ID to 0, even if DF 
>>is set, isn't such a good idea?
> 
> 
> Any device that clears DF is so terminally broken that you've already
> lost the battle the moment you bought it. 

Perhaps, but still, always setting the IP datagram ID to the same value 
even with the DF bit set seems contrary to the "conservative in what we 
send" that is so often brought-forth as a reason a stack behaves the way 
it does.

rick jones