Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"
Andrew Mcgregor <andrewmcgr@google.com> Tue, 03 March 2015 00:07 UTC
Return-Path: <andrewmcgr@google.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF4591A8AEE for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:07:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mSTvm2C6XRkN for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22d.google.com (mail-qg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE05E1A8AED for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:07:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id z107so8025058qgd.4 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:07:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9KYZFB7xecgx4iya+ZWIUejmJJvqQsVZAt+810pAfe4=; b=FubUjaOFlbYZrlnu5DLLbK38Rq5LoLqf/UzcA8hjlbKJ/K9qIFZlgjUzZe8ANSF+iP nIyI6a4Mt7w2M/TTsmZtk/S0EHUzOAShe3lwzdXcZwOGRoFXnpX4kq5n3jtHIT8TaywX +V6o/Dvh3Sw3Qy82DpdJXByg+zJ5X8t6Rg8ic6ihPk9trF0/8ePZGjRUEJuX4qzybuCz BZUN/kToFYl4diylT7ZOpRkAxcN7+rBc6qZsufJBZv0UaVwqDEvjQtmI03HDgTfdra8j FVeo7WjMDoJaupP45jk3QhW8mdKleGFqSgPKggAJZZjjdWdNINQHOxkGuNcSnCQjp0YO v5OA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9KYZFB7xecgx4iya+ZWIUejmJJvqQsVZAt+810pAfe4=; b=haYBY6fdg0bFcAJTPCZHwNJ53cORYgJfaRSxcI5HL64KbcWvG0qv4XIiupHeOw0NOr /+iVpMOUI60W5l8m/5aDzuCLFzwqtk3FnfINdCJN6SXhnR07x4dyJv5VxqoO77wCZtKP HIOscjHCABAGGnmtT8SsOVcW74rxTvB1KtJcQDynWJcO52gCeX5C2S+S2s2YVTjEZkWJ k0xSpkBQ3ipXy1bnGEVJ/62WDrd9UU2pHmu1XKA16CUhbUtk031OiJb2WSoIvAk8d+Ca MZ4SADOTGF4ai2rU5GzSZtw4v7jJR0JOdbAnMWeuYph2MvFRh5Qvvv8LhKJctgXgcIdS sepQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkNs1gf/XiikdIM3gYnZOewKVBOiTunrbXNFLllSjHt2pSNP0E6C77pPdS0pxTGhp8WVnNV
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.86.75 with SMTP id o69mr53638510qgd.98.1425341245944; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.68.74 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:07:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1503021532170.5051@nftneq.ynat.uz>
References: <CAA93jw7KW=9PH002d3Via5ks6+mHScz5VDhpPVqLUGK2K=Mhew@mail.gmail.com> <7B3E53F5-2112-4A50-A777-B76F928CE8F2@trammell.ch> <54F4DBC9.1010700@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1503021513060.5051@nftneq.ynat.uz> <54F4F166.6040303@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1503021532170.5051@nftneq.ynat.uz>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:07:25 +1100
Message-ID: <CAPRuP3kSo4fo9FR76d2cVLHhPCJ_pkQt_x=YQBuHyivLWVyn8w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Mcgregor <andrewmcgr@google.com>
To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c13e26a613f90510571eb6"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/B4K65UsH36jzMylGaE51X_GBzMI>
Cc: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@google.com>, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful"
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:07:29 -0000
Maybe I should mention https://github.com/apenwarr/blip HTTP ping, using deliberate 204 responses. Will run over whatever version of HTTP/SPDY/QUIC your browser happens to be using at the time. On 3 March 2015 at 10:34, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Joe Touch wrote: > > On 3/2/2015 3:14 PM, David Lang wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Joe Touch wrote: >>> >>> On 3/2/2015 1:40 AM, Brian Trammell wrote: >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> The real solution is to create a utility called "ping" that uses >>>>> traffic that gets prioritized the same way as the traffic you care >>>>> about instead of ICMP echo request/reply. Users don't care about >>>>> the packets on the wire so much as they do that you're supposed to >>>>> ping things. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are three separate problems: >>>> >>>> 1. a ping that doesn't use ICMP >>>> there are dozens of these >>>> >>>> 2. needing a reflector >>>> ping gets around this only because the reflector is widely >>>> deployed (and integrated into most OSes) >>>> >>>> 3. using the same port as the traffic you care about >>>> transport protocol is only one problem (ICMP being a "transport >>>> protocol" by virtue of using the IP protocol number field) >>>> >>>> the other is differential prioritization based on port number >>>> >>>> there's no easy solution to that; >>>> every service would need an integrated >>>> ping reflector >>>> >>>> I suspect #3 is the ultimate killer of this idea. >>>> >>> >>> The service you are trying to contact acts as a reflector for TCP >>> traffic. If you send a syn you will get back a syn-ack from the TCP >>> stack of the receiving system. >>> >> >> Sure, but SYNs and SYN-ACKs don't get prioritized the same as >> non-control TCP segments. And they could have been spoofed by a middlebox. >> > > well, this is exactly the sort of thing that http heartbeat (the core of > heartbleed) was designed to provide. > > It's not perfect, you can see where you really get the response from (vi > the traceroute), and if you are going through a MITM (i.e. transparent > proxy), all you are ever going to be able to test is the network between > yourself and the proxy. It's up to the people who own the proxy to test > beyond that. > > David Lang > > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > -- Andrew McGregor | SRE | andrewmcgr@google.com | +61 4 1071 2221
- [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Andrew Mcgregor
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… David Lang
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Brian Trammell
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Dave Dolson
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Andrew Mcgregor
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] ping loss "cons… dpreed
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Jonathan Morton
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Brian Trammell
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… David Lang
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Wes Felter
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Dave Dolson
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" David Lang
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" David Lang
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Joe Touch
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" David Lang
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Andrew Mcgregor
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Wes Felter
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… Valdis.Kletnieks
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Wesley Eddy
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] ping loss "considered harmful" Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] ping loss "cons… dpreed
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] ping loss "cons… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] [Bloat] ping loss "considered harmful" Rich Brown
- Re: [aqm] [Cerowrt-devel] ping loss "considered h… Matt Taggart