Change man-page.

This was committed as fa3746be4203fc9a3414afb21d964eec8bad74f8

In D30721#690495, @rrs wrote:

One question, were you going to kill the printf?

Address comments.

In D30721#690480, @rrs wrote:

And I think Richard is right here, the conditions on setting beta_ecn should be removed as well.

I did not do Abe, so maybe this is a question for Grenville.. I am guessing that he
was wanting always to use the beta_ecn if Abe is in play.. but I dont know.

I wanted to have rack use

beta_ecn

When we do ECN and are pacing
and beta (set to other than 50) when we
are pacing.

Are the pure whitespace changes intended?

In D30539#686463, @markj wrote:

In D30539#686316, @zlei.huang_gmail.com wrote:

Hi Mark,

I'd personally like the approach D29519 . Is it desirable to have a dedicated sysctl variable to flag the compatible mode? The default value could be set to true.

I'm not sure. This is really a quite minor modification to D29519, I'd personally prefer not to add yet another sysctl for it. Maybe we should make this behaviour conditional on COMPAT_FREEBSD13 instead.

In D30539#685842, @markj wrote:

In D30539#685837, @tuexen wrote:

Hmm. What about the corresponding case for IPv6 sockets? ttcp would still fail, since it also provides a sin_len of 0. I was expecting some fallout...

Do you know of any applications that depend on that? ttcp is IPv4-only.

Hmm. What about the corresponding case for IPv6 sockets? ttcp would still fail, since it also provides a sin_len of 0. I was expecting some fallout...

Committed in https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=500eb6dd80404ea512e31a8f795c73cb802c9c64.

Commited in https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=500eb6dd80404ea512e31a8f795c73cb802c9c64.

In D30358#681969, @rscheff wrote:

Where are the ip options accounted for, then? Is the mbuf already adjusted to no longer contain ipoptions by that time (not familiar with IP level processing).