IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption

Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com> Wed, 04 April 2018 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mikkelfj@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E5512D80E for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 12:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 qyXVe9KJKthr for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 12:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x229.google.com (mail-it0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7167312E8C3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 12:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x229.google.com with SMTP id r19-v6so29569753itc.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 12:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b44Ojr8N8IcSkyoVW3YgZGiEkVyhV4Q6BFRFBM3VT5c=; b=fMV0SEWGmMiyWDfpBhIDjdDAEYctthJDRIcFYZDwVjCeTioN5eJDhmWWAT4GYzbaRu LvAAMGIka47zeJbOTgtn+tgsafmVgJ9eTEvrsD66Uvd7rDFv7sA07QDxoFHOIelexqVJ in+LVpgjwp/LmOJc0HuIYrShSM0e5blUAjKdmb8IOLOtIiCLeED2uc+PITpnx1fUY1mM nDM6Qds8SJN7E+Il6wzn831AlARe+/y7QJl0mH/yzGpC0IY4/FRnU4MmQoPsbU9IAYTE nvpup7RJ+RHlZSSe6E++qt1ld01BWMlQk8PMjsWUd7JR7H1EHRejFJU2fJL8rklFh82z 8UIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b44Ojr8N8IcSkyoVW3YgZGiEkVyhV4Q6BFRFBM3VT5c=; b=nYI8z9AAe2altVVLgRnKbjVauQj+N5wYyHhYBVSrnHeOQq8dwb9zsyH+PUAitTVJvm PPRPzXOBf7tVyBJGtr00BMEr1n4o4XNO3t7+e84B9ay2rwJWIzN23o5weJrcwkFlpvCY utCqwSsVek5wYzUehhqZVx9KbEzOqEW22PBcdj5hctKyFauSCsdP5+EHwy2YcTd4peft 9ePdzZU5ArpIPuY44w0NeTbIXr26wANFo6n9Q5PY7jf4xp9uyZZPEmzGxxqkRJKzGDJY /TsDXqsHNG3mdzklcYasfNAt0irunfwO4hcx8yVwFz60F3S+LxRQkhGjAnFY98aXI3ce FaVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tD3IQVaLLFz+ig3u/G+UHXh1LWw/xiCNEuby+TVR9sL8Y+i4yF6 kr4/1uHuFZ2/OAtvktVRctCvv6hEBJ/V4Po2UMU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+TJxDjdEXo3W0UVLdgsd4MimBemUD5StDLP6dG7phUuhwvm9RrobDUd/JExCrUlHDw21vEUmhakBpKhMWn9Wg=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:7088:: with SMTP id f130-v6mr10601232itc.39.1522868444984; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 12:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 21:00:44 +0200
From: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR21MB063056E7E693DE4F8F1B4650B6A40@CY4PR21MB0630.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1F436ED13A22A246A59CA374CBC543998B5CDAD4@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com> <BBB8D1DE-25F8-4F3D-B274-C317848DE872@akamai.com> <CAN1APdd=47b2eXkvMg+Q_+P254xo4vo-Tu-YQu6XoUGMByO_eQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gMpz4MpdmrHLtC8MvTf5uO9LjD915jM-i2LfpKY384O2w@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0702MB3611A67E764EE1C7D1644FAD84AD0@HE1PR0702MB3611.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <d8e35569-e939-4064-9ec4-2cccfba2f341@huitema.net> <CACpbDccqKoF-Y1poHMN2cLOK9GOuvtMTPsF-QEen3b30kUo9bg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gNffwpraF-H2LQBF33vUhYFx0bi_UXJ3N14k4Xj4NmWUw@mail.gmail.com> <40C1F6FE-2B2C-469F-8F98-66329703ED50@mnot.net> <SN1PR08MB1854965F7330BDE761584191DAA40@SN1PR08MB1854.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <20180404184825.GB12306@ubuntu-dmitri> <CY4PR21MB063056E7E693DE4F8F1B4650B6A40@CY4PR21MB0630.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Airmail (420)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 21:00:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAN1APdecUUqS=zP6ada7hxp26yQfEmVAMqwayEbSiCNyEW5vsA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption
To: Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
Cc: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b3fe7605690a702f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/YPBqh4zDWsX5vyOEIubIuWQdw-8>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 19:01:18 -0000

Mike,

on your 3 options list you are missing 4) multiple PN spaces (what I call
segmented packet numbers), ie. a serial PN per CID and a unique CID per
path. We keep assuming this is very difficult and only a v2 thing.
But I think it is not very difficult to do and it would solve nearly all
the issues except ossification on a single path. And if that is a problem
(which I don’t think), it would be good to know before v2 where it really
becomes important.


Kind Regards,
Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen


On 4 April 2018 at 20.51.41, Praveen Balasubramanian (
pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org) wrote:

You are also ignoring all bulk transfer applications over WAN and in DC
where the CPU costs will magnify much more compared to online streaming web
video and web search. I suspect the cost will be more like 3-4x. From
service deployment point of view its still HTTP with TLS, just changing a
transport underneath shouldn't require throwing 3x more servers.

-----Original Message-----
From: QUIC [mailto:quic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dmitri Tikhonov
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 11:48 AM
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>; Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>; IETF
QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Getting to consensus on packet number encryption

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:38:18PM +0000, Mike Bishop wrote:
> When you get right down to it, I'm sympathetic to the cost argument,
> but it doesn't outweigh the other two. A given server can (I
> presume) sustain dramatically more Telnet connections than it can SSH
> connections, but people who advocate continuing to use Telnet for that
> reason are roundly ridiculed.. SSH has a different, better security
> profile and those differences justify the cost. TCP versus QUIC seems
> similar.

We are comparing HTTPS with QUIC -- thus the telnet/SSH analogy is not
applicable.

- Dmitri.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email