Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Fri, 10 March 2017 07:01 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@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 EE6D31294CE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 23:01:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 fojvxe21KJCm for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 23:01:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2-ext3.iad.github.net [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83E4912940B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 23:01:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 23:01:22 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1489129282; bh=WU9lXn22EEzfR28JPJnP4RPBN2MN3PQeN24yRPj3k8E=; h=From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TDS+gXo3FIFkeBrkXteGKxZKbiHTWk0hCGm3LIV2W/Qv34/v9Ax8bUVioc3N72Mi4 MDL3erw+Dn11BmS1vBjg+tWKFLMvfAOsuUhAaYizJQqhPE7iIy3JPXDj0QOPX5rc94 REfz2fnGemapKJwubrOoo7ZrO//41Vra6eKoKp9Q=
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383/285593806@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/383@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maximum packet size? (#383)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_58c24f42b9098_7e63fe8e33cbc3c1011ee"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/9gXvdchyPmQOuBWeIvU29KKyvFg>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quic@ietf.org
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: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 07:01:25 -0000
I'd like to make the argument that if we don't define a maximum packet size here, implementations should be allowed to choose one and drop larger packets. I have very little experience with PMTUD, but wouldn't consistently dropping these packets look like one element on the path doesn't suppport the higher MTU and cause the peer to reduce the packet size? Setting a maximum packet size is essentially a DoS defense for an implementation. During the handshake, undecrytable packets have to be queued (because reordering can happen). In quic-go, we're queuing up to 10 packets before sending a Public Reset, which is a reasonably small memory commitment of about 15 kB. Things might look different if these were maximum size UDP packets though. -- 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/383#issuecomment-285593806
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a maxim… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Marten Seemann
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Aron-Schats
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… janaiyengar
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Igor Lubashev
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do we need to define a m… Martin Thomson