Re: [pmtud] Improvement for the current PMTUD mechanism

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Sun, 16 October 2005 19:21 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ERE4E-0001gG-EB; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:21:10 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ERE4D-0001g8-Cw for pmtud@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:21:09 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17009 for <pmtud@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:21:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from server.frh.utn.edu.ar ([170.210.17.146] ident=qmailr) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EREFM-0002kW-4I for pmtud@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:32:41 -0400
Received: (qmail 25145 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2005 19:20:31 -0000
Received: from 200-70-177-84.mrse.com.ar (HELO fgont.gont.com.ar) (gont-fernando@200.70.177.84) by server.frh.utn.edu.ar with SMTP; 16 Oct 2005 19:20:31 -0000
Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20051016155921.04269278@www.syntrip.com.ar>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:02:17 -0300
To: John Heffner <jheffner@psc.edu>, pmtud@ietf.org
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [pmtud] Improvement for the current PMTUD mechanism
In-Reply-To: <200510101423.17123.jheffner@psc.edu>
References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050905131637.039f4138@pop3.frh.utn.edu.ar> <084d0512d63b332017c8e0f0d99c934c@psc.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20051005190741.01d9ae08@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <200510101423.17123.jheffner@psc.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Cc:
X-BeenThere: pmtud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery <pmtud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud>, <mailto:pmtud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pmtud>
List-Post: <mailto:pmtud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pmtud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud>, <mailto:pmtud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: pmtud-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pmtud-bounces@ietf.org

At 03:23 p.m. 10/10/2005, John Heffner wrote:

> > >Using the algorithm specified in section 7.2 of
> > >draft-gont-tcpm-icmp-attacks-04, imagine the following scenario.  Some
> > >packets take a path with pmtu 1500, and every nth packet takes a path with
> > >pmtu < 1500.  So the first n-1 packets get through fine and are
> > >acked.  The nth packet will be lost and an ICMP PTB message sent back.
> > >The segment is fast-retransmitted and will get through, causing the
> > >delayed response to the ICMP to become no response.  This will continue
> > >indefinitely, with a loss rate of 1/n.
> >
> > Good point. I think the simple answer to this issue is to disable "fast
> > retransmit" when there's a pending ICMP message. What do you think?
>
>This concerns me because it could have real side effects beyond pmtud.  This
>might be a topic for tcpm.

Actually, this cannot have interoperation problems. IIRC, TCP congestion 
control is not mandatory.
And even then, fast retransmit is not specifically congestion control. If 
anything, I'm proposing to slow down the packet rate, rather than 
increasing it. (i.e. being more conservative).


> > (As a side note, I'm not sure the behavior you describe would happen in
> > practice. Particularly because of TCP's slow-start algorithm. As there are
> > only a few segments "in flight" just after connection establishment or a
> > period of idleness, in many cases there won't be enough duplicate ACKs for
> > fast retransmit to be triggered. Anyway, as the fix to the point you raised
> > is pretty simple and inoffensive, that's the easier way to go).
>
>It does feel like a corner case, probably difficult to trigger.  But I think
>it would be hard to prove it never happens, particularly if you consider all
>possible future behaviors of TCP (with modified slow start or retransmit
>algorithms).

Will address this in the next revision of my draft.

Kindest regards,

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org






_______________________________________________
pmtud mailing list
pmtud@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud