[Spud] on NAT timers in UDP (Fwd: [Maprg] Is UDP a trash heap?)
Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> Tue, 24 May 2016 09:14 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B410112D5B5 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 02:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qTUD94t5PkUt for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 02:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0988B12D50E for <spud@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 02:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:64:42:2c53:6307:dcc9:5f34] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:64:42:2c53:6307:dcc9:5f34]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D8ED1A03C3 for <spud@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 11:14:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F50BB211-15E1-4A4B-BE66-28C86053B869"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:14:47 +0200
References: <D1BB6FF7-E4DF-4266-BB0E-5540E7C8D254@netapp.com>
To: spud <spud@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <AED9E045-C773-4167-BAFB-E551EC326F8C@trammell.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/J6BD1pIYSE0uPVALhWtHsfLmqNg>
Subject: [Spud] on NAT timers in UDP (Fwd: [Maprg] Is UDP a trash heap?)
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 09:14:52 -0000
Greetings, all, For those of you not on maprg@irtf.org, here's an IMC paper on a laboratory experiment on captive middleboxes (from 2010): one datapoint on the need for TCP-like state management in PLUS. Cheers, Brian > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> > Subject: Re: [Maprg] Is UDP a trash heap? > Date: 24 May 2016 at 10:58:01 GMT+2 > To: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> > Cc: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>, "maprg@irtf.org" <maprg@irtf.org> > > On 2016-05-24, at 10:50, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote: >> As noted over on the spud@ietf.org list, there are other questions about UDP vs TCP treatment that we need answers to as well: distribution of NAT timers on UDP NAT, prevalence and distribution of UDP rate limiting. (The second question is of course hard to answer with active measurement unless you're willing to run DoS attacks.) > > There is some (now old) data on this in our IMC paper: http://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2010/papers/p260.pdf > > NAT timers are shorter, and rate limiting more prevalent. > > Lars
- [Spud] on NAT timers in UDP (Fwd: [Maprg] Is UDP … Brian Trammell