Mark Smith writes: > So your currently requirements are exactly the same as all the > other users of the Internet? No, but my situation is similar to theirs. They don't require improvements if their systems do all they require, either. > I find it hard to believe that your requirements are exactly > the same as mine, and I'm only one of the other approximately > 500 million people currently accessing the Internet. They need not be the same as yours. Your requirements, or the requirements of other users of the Internet, may be even more modest than mine. Indeed, for the majority of Internet users, this is probably actually the case. > Do you know what ECN does? Yes. I've read the RFC. > Can you explain why you don't need it? The burden of proof is not upon me. It's up to the person recommending ECN to prove to me that I need it. I don't experience network congestion with any significant frequency. I don't need ECN. Packets in my connections are not being dropped, or at least not to any extent that I've perceived, and this has always been the case. ECN is an "improvement" that I don't require, and having it actually makes the Net more inaccessible than it was without ECN, because not every part of the Net is compatible with ECN. If there are specific applications so intolerant to congestion-related packet loss that they justify ECN, then those applications--and only those--should use ECN. Personally, though, I'd prefer that it always be turned off by default. The Internet worked before ECN, it will continue to work today without ECN.