Re: [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why?
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 13 July 2015 17:52 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 30A4F1B2CD9
for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01]
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 AQZrrIpQ-vDU for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5832B1B2CD2
for <spud@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.211] (mul.isi.edu [128.9.160.211])
(authenticated bits=0)
by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t6DHpXhU024133
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55A3FAA4.7090208@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:51:32 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>,
Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
References: <CANJ8QndAWK1ErRsUNAUHkA00aA5xzFsaQHiArCaN9jr64qCSnQ@mail.gmail.com>
<FD304957-E34A-4CA5-B05A-3394D9062F1D@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
<DM2PR0301MB06551595B03037418CD24D75A89C0@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
<20150713172537.GF23837@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150713172537.GF23837@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/e8Gm1mD-XjD7nnP83jvM1KT-lTo>
Cc: Jacob Chappell <chappellind@gmail.com>, "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>,
=?windows-1252?Q?Mirja_K=FChlewind?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>,
touch@isi.edu
Subject: Re: [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why?
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: <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: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:52:12 -0000
On 7/13/2015 10:25 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: ... > Teardown: > > Explicit teardown in TCP doesn't seem to be bad enough of a > problem that TCP was changed, right ? See RFCs 4953 and 5961. This is also one reason why BGP sessions use either graceful restart (4724 - to reduce the impact of the lost connection) or are directly protected against spoofing by TCP MD5 (2385) or TCP-AO (5925). I.e., TCP and TCP uses were changed to address this issue. Joe
- [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why? Jacob Chappell
- Re: [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why? Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why? Christian Huitema
- Re: [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why? Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why? Joe Touch
- Re: [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why? Eliot Lear
- Re: [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why? Joe Touch
- Re: [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why? Toerless Eckert