[quicwg/base-drafts] Use Conservative Initial Packet Size (#1209)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Thu, 15 March 2018 13:14 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 56314128C0A for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 06:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.605
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Y1zVqVUKy9ET for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 06:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE424127137 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 06:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 06:14:04 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1521119644; bh=7dvgHAAngMycpAtR9yzQWdpRCgVbBB+LkA8PtPiK7gs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=unF+sFdaG7xj6I6XBy2npg0sT5luhpfTCFrjuNuD1114r/P9mSNOjFDjBu5AHgL4x If/87RBL6wawPGfM2D02lX0Qod+swn6QqHFqpOXt2LQghjHofW5bGZHoNTeJ193U6L wL/4AIDUfh5G/uH7ZGU6Mpq0GQMZJIv3Xe+JF0Wc=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab1abce8adbb41dc477717023e002e64921f254d7792cf0000000116c2339c92a169ce123648ce@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1209@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Use Conservative Initial Packet Size (#1209)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5aaa719cb7a51_16662af53f25eec83489c2"; 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
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/D9uOOZRauWxeToAYxXCeY1Mu9LA>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:14:07 -0000

The transport draft text on PMTU (8.4. Path Maximum Transmission Unit) says

... limit of 1280 followed by:
" Some QUIC implementations MAY wish to be more conservative in computing allowed QUIC packet size given unknown tunneling overheads or IP header options."

But the handshake requires banging against this limit, so it is not practical to reduce the limit in anticipation of tunnelling overhead.

There are two reasons for having the handshake at 1280: 1) to guarantee that 1280 really is available and force infrastructure to respect this, and 2) to discourage amplification attacks.

Perhaps it is better to set the handshake minimum to 1000 octets and encourage the use of 1280 for an initial PMTU unless additional tunneling concerns needs to be addressed. Alternatively edit the discussion on PMTU because it is not practical to reduce the size with the current handshake.

As discussed on list, it is often the case that ether frames have 1500+ octets, but when tunnels get layered, this might not be enough.

-- 
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/1209