Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How many datagrams can a client send prior to validating the path? (#2135)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Wed, 16 January 2019 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755CF131063 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 01:13:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
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 eYZzHeV-iAPj for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 01:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o9.sgmail.github.com (o9.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 158AA12F1A5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 01:13:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=HOZPsLRYSt15jJRPZaL6zowo9fU=; b=wR/9/CJSKdh9W1Pp xv3MqZ0qfhJ75P/oEnb/4r+uRsHa3beBUOZhfRwiCK0NlJ3IOKdqzKX6H/4Q237M ieyTlaq+RyI4pBJ5LKNviBwCo15uzT3/LBfc1m41tZfghxXEzJgwZIFKTMRT96U1 85WKVFmc+vPAaUPvqgTTe8ttUIM=
Received: by filter1240p1las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter1240p1las1-11745-5C3EF5D1-1 2019-01-16 09:13:53.091812999 +0000 UTC m=+120098.629036734
Received: from github-lowworker-4f62d42.cp1-iad.github.net (unknown [192.30.252.35]) by ismtpd0010p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id yD_8sVkwRBSE_gRsJ6hRVA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:13:52.945 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from github.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by github-lowworker-4f62d42.cp1-iad.github.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FDDC2786 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 01:13:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:13:53 +0000
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab403f135e11748840b2147eb6e4dacea512daf41292cf000000011856b7d092a169ce174638d4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2135/454706369@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2135@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2135@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How many datagrams can a client send prior to validating the path? (#2135)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c3ef5d0e3279_7e1f3ff05f4d45c413219f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak2mmgVMy3HebykF9vVHfFWN/IK4PTls3oC+D2 APMNdHyCRUMYgf+TyU5SDdLG0IextnSPmQvNfF1LP4ieRasIgjwqsj/Ov6+X8YmAi6LB/e8vWgBEAJ C1cOPw/ajPFfwMa285EG2ZHqEsSCJAStrwubnS87elIkGCXMXzNVBf3hVA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/5UG4cS38NaWnv8HvaUTpQl9bUBQ>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:13:55 -0000

I was thinking:

The client creates a valid connection. Then initiates a migration to a new path that it does not own for the sole purpose of DoS'ing some other poor individual. While there is a setup cost, the migration can be repeated for the same or different targets until the peer decides it is enough and closes.

How is the initial CWND sufficient protection against that?


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2135#issuecomment-454706369