[Maprg] Is UDP a trash heap?

See thread and cited draft below.  I’ve heard “UDP is a trash heap” invoked multiple times.  Are there any broad based measurements of UDP loss rates for ports other than 53?  Is IPv6 different than IPv4 in this regard?

--aaron

From: Spud <spud-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:51 AM
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>, "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com>, "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>, Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Spud] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-transports-over-udp-00.txt

On Monday, May 23, 2016, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Now all this being said, I also don’t fully get why some folks have such a
>> big problem with running stuff over UDP. I’m not against doing that, if only
>> as a temporary solution that would serve to convince people that the
>> transport (option, ..) is useful.
>> In a TAPS world, it’s just another option to try…
>>
>
> The fact that udp is mostly (by volume) internet attack traffic  is my
> concern with udp.
>
> If legitimate traffic starts using udp in volume, it will make distiguishing
> and thwarting voulmetric attacks very difficult at scale. Without currently
> curbing n * 100g blasts of udp traffic with blanket policers, i would not be
> able to keep my network up... This is a daily issue.  For example, my usual
> udp volume is about 1%. If it goes to 10% suddenly, it is likely smart to
> drop 11% and onwards as a 10x increase in udp is 100% certainly not legit.
>
> My request to quic and spud is simply use a different transport protocol
> number so that their interesting and innovative traffic does not run up
> against the many network policers that are required to enforce well known
> baselines of good normal udp traffic. The quic folks say that they cannot do
> that since 10 year old cpe only passes udp and tcp, then they rant about
> ossified stacks and how we need to put everything on udp to make progess ...
> Seems like they are just choosing to ossify on udp ...  And udp is already
> considered trash (reflection attacks) ...So we agree to disagree, i guess
>
Isn't any other protocol besides TCP also considered trash right now?

My network only "manages" udp.  Ymmv. 

UDP based transport protocols would use well know port numbers. A 

firewall can allow UDP port X that carries a 

A "firewall" is a enterprise solution that does not scale for large national internet providers in the usa 

Yes, the bulk of the trash is less than 20 source ports (chargen, ntp, snmp, ntp, dns, ....). But we also get very large bot swarms doing straight packet attacks with udp.  Even a novice like me can write to udp sockets in python on any port and stuff data through it. 

properly congestion

controlled protocols not subject to reflection attacks, but disallow
other UDP ports.

Tom

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-byrne-opsec-udp-advisory-00
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>>
>

_______________________________________________ Spud mailing list Spud@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud 