Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD
Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 19:31 UTC
Return-Path: <lear@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 006EF1B2DDC
for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5,
SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5]
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 qET-RG3In6YN for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73])
(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60CCD1B2B38
for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;
d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3328; q=dns/txt; s=iport;
t=1427398279; x=1428607879;
h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:
references:in-reply-to;
bh=ywE8SRspsp1zgD41eUl7djMCRNyFJvBBw2UVbkE92LE=;
b=LlTS4REUHdBTEeLhYBGp8XBlryFLzDAV0uWyyMcVKkm+DDX6dlV5CwKj
9He7hPegMColJn+W9sWlnQldzHL1gUTmRjjGSe/6GMEbYCv29tjIvm/qn
5VJOUBLDyxCVQZcGdVZT+fwDmTkk+IHubbGX/urjYo0pdIxPRX3bQnxgV s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AKBQAnXhRV/5hdJa1cgwaEPsgUAoFeTAEBAQEBAX2EFQEBBCNVARALBAETCRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBg0BBwEBiCuyB5o4AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4sohHgHgmiBRQEEixOHJoEyhlSBG4VpiWKDRyKEDCCCdAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,474,1422921600";
d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="407312293"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152])
by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2015 19:31:19 +0000
Received: from [10.89.6.58] (rcdn-vpn-client-10-89-6-58.cisco.com [10.89.6.58])
by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2QJVHRJ011414;
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:31:17 GMT
Message-ID: <55145E83.9090608@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:31:15 -0500
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
References: <CAD62q9XopDJ7PFA9Hz7R2nV6OcwhQA=T=oGwQAN2_0EFPZvwzg@mail.gmail.com> <5513F563.50702@cisco.com>
<CAD62q9WjVFtDrd6ja_2bzOZX1Sa6-Fc=JpdOi+d1gkNyQ1Cn0Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD62q9WjVFtDrd6ja_2bzOZX1Sa6-Fc=JpdOi+d1gkNyQ1Cn0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="83aMTJ8hj9cGAsXsiG2xfTDK8xAxuGDDt"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/nrbn8ByosOjcsf1M7R8CH-hGJZo>
Cc: "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD
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: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:31:40 -0000
On 3/26/15 2:07 PM, Aaron Falk wrote: > HI Eliot- > > I don't understand your response. Could you expand on it a little? > Are you saying they both solve the problem but SPUD is more efficient? There are potential efficiency tradeoffs, depending on whether the results of the work lead to additional packet overhead or not (we cannot yet say what that tradeoff is). PCP requires setup but there is no packet overhead. The reason that SPUD doesn't require setup is that it is implicit and observable in the same way TCP is, and the intentions are clear to everyone. That has been a good way to protect hosts from some forms of attack, such as DOS/DDOS. Eliot
- [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD Aaron Falk
- Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD Pal Martinsen (palmarti)
- Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD Eliot Lear
- Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD Aaron Falk
- Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD Eliot Lear
- Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD Phillip Hallam-Baker