IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Fri, 12 June 2015 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 231F71A8859 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 q4A8uwtq5nHU for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (mail-ie0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) (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 9604E1A87A8 for <spud@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iesa3 with SMTP id a3so32944747ies.2 for <spud@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HMqCF476sE8j/VK1bYdn7ex3jcKryyOogsa5/a87W0w=; b=AW1ixEsqEdjhsiKZSEUIP+b2JsCC8PKG0017UBA29U0PH2EWxHw3Gqjdh4G6xQJATS rG6hHEyDgKC+2ymDkOn4xNL0Pqrk6iQ5yq2D9sI11jp3hmUzrIVd3xkVVWaseMIy1/Ph +XyJyL3y8MRpv/1o6cQP02cWHiwY5bZ/sFnjsoRNmR4ktjbXPHFFHu6EMrhPgTIezVXT /+SZdKTme506kd0Y2gPIwfnUM8jEx68mEderzkx4fbD4X1qfuVuBu+OL2oiak5/in/xH 7XQWowR2m0Z8VBNxibSthHg21vsu+6GNlVBIZXsz5cwjApKx2qU8UIlcgFvU/iuD7/hH 5s0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn4K+PAEuekMOMO43B8B8QMuI8rD2JD+NnlRnsmVGQfybS+P8jqWk0uJQRlxegf3f10+2ni
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.90.179 with SMTP id bx19mr7512075igb.43.1434152253970; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.160.2 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR0301MB06555A1F115E2551C3D1BC8FA8BB0@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20150612143838.GJ27147@cisco.com> <DM2PR0301MB06555A1F115E2551C3D1BC8FA8BB0@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:37:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S34z-9gi7+VVnyVdFmLroR_QYeZMWPpbCeES_TJ46iSR0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/hwhKQLamY_zMVnf3CiRz-jmg33c>
Cc: "mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch" <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>, "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>, Youjianjie <youjianjie@huawei.com>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
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 23:37:36 -0000

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Christian Huitema
<huitema@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> 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,

You present a very interesting datapoint, but I'm not sure how to
interpret it. Is UDP getting far reach now because most users are not
behind firewalls, firewalls are allowing all UDP to pass, or holes
have been commonly punched in firewalls for specific applications?
Would this imply there is less need to implement a UDP based protocol
to work with stateful firewalls?

Thanks,
Tom

> -- Christian Huitema
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spud mailing list
> Spud@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email