Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Detect adversarial ECN reporting (#1426)

Magnus Westerlund <notifications@github.com> Mon, 11 June 2018 11:53 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 11E1A130E3F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 04:53:04 -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 XMkEhF5R50_a for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 04:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D116130F91 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 04:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 04:53:00 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1528717980; bh=BsGYyFo6QZ8p//NDQEE6KkMWcM9A0DMu55yBcmwGsig=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=sFIGVk88GRe6mV853cCt5gQ7ZoMCz2pYRgp2w4tDormRlnbFld+YjjUQo3akH8gzY 2YQcvdM2VE3A7jliWbODJs6R16V4HkUdpBShBJWv08V1ofiEXmkG26HBKw2J1RzNNG I0FcN55eVpHze0ERT0W3zn+YTCJa0waTAFKqZI3g=
From: Magnus Westerlund <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab4bd656a97a158f9d3a21fa6797eb0e3717be555a92cf000000011736249c92a169ce13ade6f2@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1426/396217066@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1426@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1426@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Detect adversarial ECN reporting (#1426)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b1e629c9680f_5dca3fb0a1d40f802050f9"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: gloinul
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/z8l_dUqEBphm20maxWUTLcQiReU>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:53:04 -0000

Agree with @gorryfair that this is a generic issue for ECN. On the higher level clearly a sender should be able to test the response of the receiver by marking ECN-CE from the sender side. I think this falls into the same optional possibilities as the intentional sequence number gaps. 

So, I think it would be good if there could be a general recommendation for this type of receiver behavior verification. The masking of actual CE marks are one issue. The others I see, is any API limitations on certain platforms. 

On the other side one can question the value of lying about the CE marks. Being none-responsive to CE-marks may result in pushing other flows out of the way, at the same time it does build queue, especially if one-self is the main flow. Also, in certain networks, one could be penalized for not being responsive to CE marks. 

-- 
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/1426#issuecomment-396217066