Re: [Spud] Connect and ACK Bits: Why?
Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> Mon, 13 July 2015 18:12 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 9060B1B2CFE
for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 MAkTc57LtAzU for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92])
(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2401B2CF8
for <spud@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;
d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=809; q=dns/txt; s=iport;
t=1436811120; x=1438020720;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:
mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=QvlWqaDh9b8h9gWyofQ9heHyF7wAHX0YJLQohMQWEtA=;
b=aqaSCfwBdIJi0gpbkHxgrLkDrOj15zmNF5e7ByurwQsJBRlbF/AEkRtd
ZYyCN4WqRcIVAiFRZIFpATai2hb5804u+IYZJwwQOj325i9/+RWV63q6m
sXth34xLBmyRKPwTxLzU6CBiDAZyyi50dzq9gHQFI7o8jKdDa9rK2PJTT s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AaAwCE/qNV/51dJa1bDoMFvQAJhReCVAKBPDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCQBAQQ6PxALGAklDwVJiEHLOwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReLTIUGB4QrAQSNHIcVjAMBmGsmY4EqG4EVXh6CfAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,464,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="168226386"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157])
by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2015 18:12:00 +0000
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121])
by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6DIBx9j001246
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:11:59 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 t6DIBmgg016198;
Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:11:48 -0700
Received: (from eckert@localhost)
by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id t6DIBmw1016196;
Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:11:48 -0700
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:11:48 -0700
From: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <20150713181148.GH23837@cisco.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> <55A3FAA4.7090208@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55A3FAA4.7090208@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/qKtEc5W8wLZIn9GK1cVqMgKE_EM>
Cc: Jacob Chappell <chappellind@gmail.com>,
Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>,
Mirja =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChlewind?= <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>,
"spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
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 18:12:01 -0000
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:51:32AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Right, my choice of words wasn't ideal. I meant to say that we
should ismply consider applying fundamentally the same mechanisms
used with TCP, just simplified wherever possible. MD5/A0 do seem to
make a lot of sense.
Cheers
Toerless
- [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