[multipathtcp] A question related to the 4th ACK in the MP_JOIN handshake
"Shuai Wang" <13211134@bjtu.edu.cn> Thu, 13 April 2017 08:43 UTC
Return-Path: <13211134@bjtu.edu.cn>
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 AE2D2131801 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kfwv6x6WDiIk for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bjtu.edu.cn (mail.bjtu.edu.cn [218.249.29.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C2C13180D for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ajax-webmail-Jdweb4 (Coremail) ; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:45:00 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:45:00 +0800
From: Shuai Wang <13211134@bjtu.edu.cn>
To: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <f94160e.4c46b.15b667cb4d6.Coremail.13211134@bjtu.edu.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1133359_50676351.1492073100500"
X-Originating-IP: [116.117.134.28]
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Coremail Webmail Server Version 4.0.8 dev build 20150608(70565.7215.7117) Copyright (c) 2002-2017 www.mailtech.cn bjtu
X-SendMailWithSms: false
X-CM-TRANSID: eJ5wygC3RUWMOu9YU+PtAA--.2014W
X-CM-SenderInfo: yrtsiiartuquxmwxhvlgxou0/1tbiAg0JA1RyqAp6SwABsx
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Ur529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7IcSsGvfJ3iIAIbVAYjsxI4VWxJw CS07vEb4IE77IF4wCS07vE1I0E4x80FVAKz4kxMIAIbVAFxVCaYxvI4VCIwcAKzIAtYxBI daVFxhVjvjDU=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/KPUvA2hhp5C6KtVs92rYvJPIwww>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 03:20:20 -0700
Subject: [multipathtcp] A question related to the 4th ACK in the MP_JOIN handshake
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: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:43:26 -0000
Hi,
As it is said in RFC 6824 that the 4th ACK packet (for responding ACK/MP_JOIN packet) is necessary in MP_JOIN handshake before sending data. And the reason is that "The initiator's authentication information is sent in its first ACK(the third packet of the handshake). This data needs to be sent reliably, since it is the only time this HMAC is sent; therefore, receipt of this packet MUST trigger a regulat TCP ACK in response, and the packet MUST be retransmitte if this ACK is not received."
But in my opinion, the receiver can check whether this HMAC included in the third ACK is correct, so the receiver can know whether the sender is the original sender or not. For the above considerations, I think the 4th ACK packet is unnecessary.
If my opinion is wrong, please help me to correct. Thank you very much!
Best wishes,
Shuai
- Re: [multipathtcp] A question related to the 4th … Sargent, Matthew T. (GRC-LCA0)[Peerless Technologies]
- [multipathtcp] A question related to the 4th ACK … Shuai Wang