IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [multipathtcp] Timestamp option for Multipath TCP

Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be> Wed, 29 March 2017 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA261294F0 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=uclouvain.be
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 GHtDeYrOTLC5 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (smtp.sgsi.ucl.ac.be [130.104.5.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C990A1294DB for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mbpobo.local (unknown [5.149.142.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: obonaventure@smtp1.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp1.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5F8A67D9F3; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:05:59 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 smtp1.sgsi.ucl.ac.be D5F8A67D9F3
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1490792760; bh=RPVzERDWBp22+/Fk+QOpt01YEyvraPRQsgVbMy4xnpk=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=gNr7qyPAwFgEoz18Rn/laemBkoMqVOJx9+RwoYKX8zU9ecWbCSca09Do8OHfuSa6S qPtz9kpQf9EX+/s5+RUlO5gZt6f+k1mgXM1kq92cCrriEudUBN4Mhd30Xre4P/IMFD 3NpZRSy+CVEb7qLz1Cty0oLmdbyIGBlQCzBIJ5uA=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at smtp-1
Reply-To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
References: <c030efb2-5a1f-9ec9-a214-c302ebfb151f@uclouvain.be> <CAO249yesLeyKU_1ycFQ1YP093kmhe-Ng6ZN9Du5g8ofp=CKT0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Cc: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
From: Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
Message-ID: <30fe6625-33c0-6106-dfab-71bc015e9a65@uclouvain.be>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:05:58 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO249yesLeyKU_1ycFQ1YP093kmhe-Ng6ZN9Du5g8ofp=CKT0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-Information:
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: D5F8A67D9F3.A7053
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-From: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/1nyNjuCHStTa9IKW0COYbJVRt40>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Timestamp option for Multipath TCP
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/multipathtcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:06:10 -0000

Yoshifumi,
>
> I personally prefer 1, but I might prefer some generic framework as I am
> guessing there will be other cases that we don't want timestamps for PAWS.
>
> BTW, are we sure that DSN option can provide protections against PAWS?
> We cannot guarantee DSN option appears on all segments..

If there is a valid DSS option, either DSN mapping or DSN ack, then the 
segment cannot be a replay of an old segment. If we use long mappings, 
then there are two different situations :

- long mapping but TSO copies the DSS option inside each packet
- long mapping and no TSO

In the second case, we need to ensure that each packet contains some 
information that allows to support PAWS. DSS and timestamp would work


Olivier

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email