IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Change Packet Number Gap to Packet Number Offset (#1307)

Nick Banks <notifications@github.com> Fri, 20 April 2018 13:19 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 D38AB12D77B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 06:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 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, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 7qvXmjP_8y1s for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 06:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F8B912711D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 06:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 06:19:36 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1524230376; bh=yM4PSyKvjPkDd0WGzMRHKpEsxn1nykvHFnQVkd+S0j4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=KxkNzdtvMCc9HPxa+nIn8SuIpwsqvbTKF17isV8HuwjnEUY8we3uSFamChkCihDAK Oh143qCcty2KCTStyiKy/cUjw2pK+wIXPh0DeEhssr63KzEGH85iqJSmAM1mzAnc4h xs7g6k77ER6kxQ8PqtNzS773svfnpgke5lcA7sB8=
From: Nick Banks <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab8ebe9cfaf7d7aaa0f795fec758405e2defe2e62692cf0000000116f1aae892a169ce12d68139@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1307/c383093339@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1307@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1307@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Change Packet Number Gap to Packet Number Offset (#1307)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ad9e8e833187_59983fd7afb0af88996a9"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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/SDPoQiWCrnKefbdyJQjY8RnqR-w>
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:19:39 -0000

@huitema would adding the shuffle (or some other non-cryptographic greasing) alleviate your concerns here? Matching patterns between overlap would be more difficult then.

As for this design being a complex synchronization between sender and receiver, I disagree with you. Each side needs only generate the offset once, per connection ID and just store that offset. When sending, it's just an additional add and modulo operation. The sender just needs to do an add and subtraction operation.

Obviously adding whatever greasing algorithm will add additional complexity, but the CPU cost per packet should still be quite low, and easily implemented in hardware.

-- 
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/pull/1307#issuecomment-383093339

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status