Re: [core] Large asynchronous notifications under DDoS: New BLOCK Option?

Hi Med,

I think, not all assumption and requirements are clear to everyone.

I guess, your mission is to send a couple of "block" messages, but
without getting requested for the next-blocks, because the node is under
attack and already receiving too much. Therefore the SACK will be used a
little later as "cleanup"/"collect lefts".

My first idea about that was, that sending the "block-flush" just
creates the next attack. But, if you sure, that this doesn't happen,
then such an approach may help in that special situation.

I'm not sure, if you assume, that in the most cases all blocks will make
it to the destination when sending them. That may also depend on the
assumed number of blocks. If it's not assumed, that all block will be
received, your payload should be encoded in a way, that you could decode
the received blocks, even if some blocks are missing.

If that number is not too large, maybe a "blockwise with NSTART-X" will
also do it. Especially if DTLS is used, it may be possible to concat the
"ACK/next blocks" into one package (with multiple records). AFAIK, that
would require changes in implementations, which optimizes the
deduplication base on a strict sequence of blocks, but the difference
should be not too large.

best regards
Achim

Am 07.04.20 um 13:11 schrieb mohamed.boucadair@orange.com:
> Hi all,
>
> We are using Observe to receive notifications during attack events.
> These notifications are set as NON messages for reasons specific to DDoS
> conditions.
>
> With DDoS telemetry information included (see
> draft-ietf-dots-telemetry), a notification may not fit one single
> message. The use of BLOCK2 is not convenient during attack times. A full
> description of the issue is described here:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/Gbtf8bBWpxD9CWNBhS_TZtsWeP4/
>
> We are considering some mechanisms to solve this issue. One of them is
> to define a new BLOCK option (similar to BLOCK2) that does not require
> the observer to send a GET to receive the next fragment. The server will
> send all the fragments. The observer will follow a SACK-like approach to
> request retransmission of missing fragments.
>
> Please let us know whether you think this is a generic issue that should
> be solved at the CoAP or not. Suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jon & Med
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
>