IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] ??????: Numbers...

Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com> Fri, 12 June 2015 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EC7F1ACDA8 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 9IAJGTQtHYHA for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0123.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 632D21A6F30 for <spud@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.160.96.17) by DM2PR0301MB0656.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.160.96.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.184.17; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:22:16 +0000
Received: from DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.96.17]) by DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.96.17]) with mapi id 15.01.0184.014; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:22:16 +0000
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
To: Youjianjie <youjianjie@huawei.com>, "mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch" <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Spud] ??????: Numbers...
Thread-Index: AQHQpR1+Czu+JOuglEWWdj5aI8lU/52pHV7A
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:22:15 +0000
Message-ID: <DM2PR0301MB06555A1F115E2551C3D1BC8FA8BB0@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20150612143838.GJ27147@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150612143838.GJ27147@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e0:ee43::3]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM2PR0301MB0656; 3:5ZqT7bXqS4OCdYqKkFEjtBPNUg5COEfYdoX4vsYz/rfBtX8RvwRrxt4LR5zf35P9Dzq6VGeve6QugnGGJJBrtuTTBZCme0oiBZJQN7yZfQdcdhQyWOOoP6tlYq2OCheE+qoPAyREY38wgF/yfZUYAw==; 10:qtGxpAXWbmCD2rPKjC0zTyv84frLPXZ7Jqwygw+eR5TSUJemkWNhvY1XgG+y5ByTpLEI3Gfkee39hTIW19HCTdu6ZWwyTvuxg3lsAZSBpRA=; 6:M/Y1Pjob8J6RfElL5dw+gc6ViV8FYycPzN1GoDk1wMRgqjFOaG0Zk2g4a1bNdcQk
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DM2PR0301MB0656;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM2PR0301MB0656A5B00ABF0FD4D9D08657A8BB0@DM2PR0301MB0656.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401001)(5005006)(520003)(3002001); SRVR:DM2PR0301MB0656; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM2PR0301MB0656;
x-forefront-prvs: 060503E79B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51444003)(2656002)(87936001)(86362001)(189998001)(106116001)(46102003)(5001960100002)(33656002)(50986999)(54356999)(5002640100001)(76176999)(92566002)(74316001)(5001770100001)(40100003)(2501003)(2950100001)(102836002)(77156002)(99286002)(2900100001)(77096005)(62966003)(5003600100002)(76576001)(122556002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR0301MB0656; H:DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Jun 2015 17:22:15.6365 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR0301MB0656
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/O_KQP84zWJdWB_VC-PYSOeAnpc4>
Cc: "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Spud] ??????: Numbers...
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:22:23 -0000

> I have never heard 99% of UDP is trash to be true. Security folks in Cisco told me
> "a lot of unix networking apps from the 80th/90th based on UDP where
> extremely insecure", and i think thats definitely true and has lead the first wave
> of firewalling off UDP. The second wave was p2p sharing apps which also
> caused a lot of enterprises to be weary of UDP and firewall it.

Two big applications that are running over UDP: voice and video with Skype, video-games with Xbox Live. Of course, there are places where UDP is blocked, in which case UDP applications will try tunneling over HTTPS. But in the vast majority of consumer networks, these applications use UDP just fine.

-- Christian Huitema

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email