Re: [Ecn-sane] Meanwhile, over on NANOG...

["Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>]

> "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> writes:
> 
> >> -t is the TOS value; so those two happen to correspond to ECT(1) and
> >> ECT(0); and as you can see they go two different paths. Which would be
> >> consistent with the SYN going one way and the data packets going
> >> another.
> >
> > Perhaps Old enough that maybe they are treating that as TOS byte?
> >
> > Looks like you have nailed it though, someone has a broken hash.
> 
> Yup, seems like it. Posted a writeup to the NANOG list in response to
> the guy asking; it hasn't showed up in the archive, though, so I guess
> it's still in the moderation queue.
> 
> I think I'll write the whole thing up as a blog post as well, once it's
> resolved. I'll see if I can get them to tell me which router make and
> model is doing this.

Yes, please do write it up some place.  It would probably be sane to
also start a list of "Things that have been found, (and fixed if true) the following
brokeness regarding ECN/RFC3168 conformance of systems."

Even without the make and model one can describe it as inproper hashing
in ECMP routing equipment at foo.

> Thanks everyone who helped with ideas etc! :)
> 
> -Toke
-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org