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

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

"Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone at gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> writes:

>> "Rodney W. Grimes" <4bone at 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.

Yup, that was exactly my thought (documenting brokenness) :)

-Toke