IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Path Challenge Padding and Amplification Protection (#4257)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 22 October 2020 23:48 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 8F9493A09D4 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 16:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 4YSkco-E00Wl for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 16:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-25.smtp.github.com (out-25.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4297E3A09D6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 16:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-f28db1d.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.122.24]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 433D1840E52 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 16:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1603410496; bh=O1V6s12F5l5bm2HUwnkeNveTUT04PiMLJJ0+ZRznL0Q=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=TJbDYxkox3lOzq3FCDNtCNUWPhMefgKlTRY13agAim7yC9UtMWJ0fR9R5dN2NXNzB tO9cEX7XZflWUh2GdGGMAoZ5RyVTdSWVYp2eEH5mNzfEQv/mQwmR2ub9zI1LR9F5yY mll1bWGhx4kYQsEkAd7nVXTUC/UG3qu7Sf7yHsaE=
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 16:48:16 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYNKICFWXRXTQF5CWF5TX5UBEVBNHHCWUAGFQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4257/714822179@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4257@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4257@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Path Challenge Padding and Amplification Protection (#4257)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f921a403fce7_4419b4214110"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/Eoy5Xq5vlkUiRd9DoVFgAo3yqjQ>
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: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 23:48:19 -0000

I think that there is an existing MUST regarding this problem. It states that _until a peer's address is deemed valid, an endpoint MUST limit the rate at which it sends data to this address. The endpoint MUST NOT send more than a minimum congestion window's worth of data per estimated round-trip time (kMinimumWindow) ([section 9.3.1; transport draft](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#section-9.3.1-2))._

So to answer to @nibanks, current limit is not INITCWND, but 2 MTU.

I think that this limit might be a bit on the loose side, but I wonder if there is a need to change.

-- 
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/4257#issuecomment-714822179

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email