IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do not allow ICMP PTB to increase PMTU (#2161)

Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com> Fri, 14 December 2018 15:13 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 0CAFB130DDA for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:13:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, 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_HI=-5, 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 3DEhDYZdNWKd for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:13:30 -0800 (PST)
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 EC8A112F1A5 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:13:29 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:13:28 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1544800408; bh=U7fs0gvW6gJNel4e/pn5NCh56VKof4FPrb/fvdOpxXw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SoPyjbCyXVKIcQ21126g3pBpxx/g92p5wUlKxf+4wayi6yE+uiypS5PJH61RsiJ62 inCZNNmFKeLXJ1AeX3j4bSBDr86bxJHJUhScv7Kx3jKDzSxvZGNULAbXMO2oh8jJqC c0U1IyoBbd5Og04cu12gEoO4+w14QjtmT7gI9R+E=
From: Gorry Fairhurst <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab7844eb89a0064c8e79d5408b2e8e2df165ca766a92cf00000001182b8a9892a169ce174c2f88@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2161/review/185150454@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2161@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2161@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do not allow ICMP PTB to increase PMTU (#2161)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c13c898bc7fa_45fa3ff01c8d45b85045d5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gorryfair
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/rk7eY350uTRVY8bINtc9JaviSGI>
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: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:13:32 -0000

gorryfair commented on this pull request.



> @@ -3139,7 +3139,8 @@ attacks that successfully guess the IP address 3-tuple and reduce the PMTU to a
 bandwidth-inefficient value.
 
 An endpoint MUST ignore an ICMP message that claims the PMTU has decreased below
-1280 bytes.
+1280 bytes.  And endpoint MUST ignore an ICMP message that attempts to increase
+PMTU, unless the ICMP message was received in response to a PMTU probe packet.

It seems this thread is re-inventing machinery to do path probing.

I am really unsure why this would propose  a different approach than the TSVWG draft? - It would be useful to have a starting point to understand why QUIC would behave in a different way to other datagram transports. 


-- 
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/2161#discussion_r241786324

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email