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

Youjianjie <youjianjie@huawei.com> Fri, 12 June 2015 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@cisco.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 095941ACCED for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 C4KPEy8mkQp5 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CF441ACCE6 for <spud@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BgEQDr7XpV/4cNJK1cgxBUX61KkCUJgTgfCoRwgk04FAEBAQEBAQGBCkEDg2AGAQEvAS0OCxsYCR4WBQ0GHxcBEogaAxIN0FANhVYBAQEBBgEBAQEBAQEBFgSLQ4JNhm0FjGaIGYgzgV8BgTKBKoJXi0CHFSaCCxyBch4xgkcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,602,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="3009247"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jun 2015 14:38:42 +0000
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5CEcdc4020186 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:38:40 GMT
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5CEccPg027696; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:38:39 -0700
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id t5CEccNm027695; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:38:38 -0700
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:38:38 -0700
From: Youjianjie <youjianjie@huawei.com>
To: mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150612143838.GJ27147@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/gCCGyGIsc2tRuB_VmdLoplHT4-I>
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 14:38:43 -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. 


On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 09:48:55AM +0000, Youjianjie wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm also confused about the following description:
> "Today UDP is often blocked (???99% of UDP is garbage???) but volume of (good) UDP traffic grows, e.g. RTCWEB uses UDP for data and media"
> 
> What kind of UDP is called garbage? Why UDP is often blocked?
> Could somebody please explain?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jianjie
> 
> > -----????????????-----
> > ?????????: Spud [mailto:spud-bounces@ietf.org] ?????? Mirja Kühlewind
> > ????????????: 2015???3???25??? 20:55
> > ?????????: Martin Stiemerling
> > ??????: spud@ietf.org
> > ??????: Re: [Spud] Numbers...
> > 
> > Hi Martin,
> > 
> > this sentence is in quotes because that???s stuff people did actually say to me or
> > others. 99% is not true but there are currently no number publicly available to
> > our knowledge. We just started measurements on this and we are also
> > currently talking to people who might have some numbers e.g. for
> > chrome/QUIC (that???s part of the hops activity).
> > 
> > Mirja
> > 
> > 
> > > Am 25.03.2015 um 07:31 schrieb Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>om>:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I am just going through the slides for today's BOF and just got stuck on slide 5
> > of which says:
> > > "Today UDP is often blocked (???99% of UDP is garbage???) but volume of
> > > (good) UDP traffic grows, e.g. RTCWEB uses UDP for data and media"
> > >
> > > Is there reliable data that underscores UDP is often blocked?
> > >
> > > I can see cases, e.g., enterprises where this is true, but in most other
> > settings my UDP traffic is just making it to the other end, by today. Was
> > different a couple of years ago, when there was no stateful filtering of UDP
> > traffic implemented.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >  Martin
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Spud mailing list
> > > Spud@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Spud mailing list
> > Spud@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud
> _______________________________________________
> Spud mailing list
> Spud@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com