Mark Smith writes: > 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.
I think I do need ECN because of the poor bandwidth I have for my organisation, however I cannot use it because 2 important sites to us/me are ECN broken (www.ausaid.org.au/Australia Foreign Affairs, I told them about it and I have not check if they have fixed it and www.isoc.org)
I asked them both to fix their implementation, you know the story about isoc....
Unless, I would not care about reaching only 99% of the sites..
Cheers
|
---- Franck Martin franck@xxxxxxxxx SOPAC, Fiji GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9 D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320 "Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question" G.Bachelard |