That was the  consensus, but we wanted someone to confirm, plus to
	comment on the next question:

	Does it make sense for NetBSD to default to RFC1323 off, or
	maybe be able to enable RFC1323 on a per interface basis?

		David/absolute

On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Kevin Lahey wrote:

> >When RFC1323 support is enabled (by default), TCP connections which
> >negotiate use of the IP timestamp option may stall: there is more data
> >waiting on the remote host to be sent, and all data received has been ACKed
> >correctly, but the data will never be sent unless the local host sends data
> >to the remote host.
> 
> It looks like the packets are getting ACKed by the NetBSD box
> correctly, and there is plenty of window.  Some PPP servers out
> there will pooch the compression of TCP/IP packets that contain
> TCP options;  perhaps that's the problem?  Could you verify the
> packets coming in via the Linux box which is doing the PPP?
> 
> Or did I miss some subtlety?