IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Fwd: Re: [tcpm] FW: Call for Adoption: TCP Tuning for HTTP

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 03 March 2016 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF9F1B4345 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:25:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 HlE_DMd1cvoW for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7134F1B4350 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1abZj8-00043G-8m for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 20:20:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 20:20:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1abZj8-00043G-8m@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <touch@isi.edu>) id 1abZj3-0003jP-In for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 20:19:57 +0000
Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <touch@isi.edu>) id 1abZj2-0003Ks-A4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 20:19:57 +0000
Received: from [10.123.84.54] (usc-secure-wireless-206-054.usc.edu [68.181.206.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u23KIOU8020097 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:18:43 -0800 (PST)
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
References: <56D74C23.5010705@isi.edu> <56D76A7E.7090507@isi.edu> <20160302232125.GA18275@1wt.eu> <56D77892.2000308@isi.edu> <20160303065545.GA18412@1wt.eu> <56D87BAC.4060204@isi.edu> <20160303184418.GA18774@1wt.eu> <56D88D58.5060406@isi.edu>
Cc: touch@isi.edu, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <56D89C0D.6030601@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:18:21 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56D88D58.5060406@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.9.160.161; envelope-from=touch@isi.edu; helo=boreas.isi.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1abZj2-0003Ks-A4 f4ffca008379573320dcb70c47c8d0ef
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [tcpm] FW: Call for Adoption: TCP Tuning for HTTP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/56D89C0D.6030601@isi.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31168
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>


On 3/3/2016 11:15 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
...
>>>> A TIME_WAIT on the client is not recyclable. That's why
>>>> TIME_WAIT is a problem for the client and not for the server.
>>>
>>> See above; TW is *never* recyclable.
>>
>> Yes it definitely is on the server side, which is the point. When you
>> receive a SYN whose ISN is higher than the end of the current window,
>> it's a new one by definition (as indicated in RFC1122).
> 
> RFC1122's statement on TIME-WAIT has nothing to do with the ISN the
> server receives; it has to do with the ISN the server assigns. You don't
> "recycle" the TIME-WAIT; you effectively reopen the connection with the
> same port pair. But that then requires keeping more state in the TW.

And while we're at it, this rule is nearly completely defeated if ISNs
are randomized or treated as a single resource throughout a machine
(rather than being specific to a socket pair).

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email