Re: [Int-area] Middleboxes to aid the deployment of MPTCP

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 7/18/2017 3:43 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> TCP must be E2E and fall back to legacy endpoints without a reconnection
>> attempt, as required by RFC793.
>>
>> These aren't generic solutions; they're attacks on a TCP connection, IMO.
>>
> I agree. This seems be akin to stateful firewalls model that impose
> artificial requirements on networking (like every TCP packet for a
> connection must got through some middlebox or the connection is
> dropped). We need to move things back to E2E semantics for transport
> protocols-- nodes that try to maintain transport state in the network
> should be considered the problem not the solution!
I'm a little less concerned with state in the network (link layers have
state too - both hard and soft).

My primary concern is this as an attack on TCP - or its equivalence to
an attack. I though the point of true TCP and lower layer security was
to prevent such attacks.

Perhaps that's why I consider TLS and TCPcrypt to be so badly misnamed.
They don't protect *TCP* at all.

Joe