Re: [tae] [tsv-area] Transport negotiation

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Thu, 11 December 2008 08:27 UTC

Return-Path: <tae-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tae-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tae-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D723A699F; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:27:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tae@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tae@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A1A3A693F; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:27:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Al98snsoFtwV; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:27:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5393A699F; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Gorry-Fairhursts-Laptop.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mBB8QgCO005352 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:26:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4940CEC2.4010403@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:26:42 +0000
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Organization: The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
References: <3BB334D8-B00C-48C1-ACBF-4D09576DEADF@mpi-sws.org> <492C7F97.3030000@isi.edu> <EDCC4CF2-DC3C-409F-8F99-3BE51BAE4111@surrey.ac.uk> <492DE8AD.1090300@isi.edu> <7DA33930-1767-492B-807E-7A7DA661AFE9@apple.com> <5AE49824-74B1-4ABE-BBD4-7DEAFA348245@apple.com> <3F1AB633-7E17-47C4-B126-D8D872B552C5@apple.com> <0191F3F9-CC3D-4925-90BC-15BC966FE012@apple.com> <78ACC2CD-C6E6-46A3-B198-0C0284917E94@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <78ACC2CD-C6E6-46A3-B198-0C0284917E94@apple.com>
X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-ERG-MailScanner-From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Cc: tae@ietf.org, tsv-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tae] [tsv-area] Transport negotiation
X-BeenThere: tae@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
List-Id: Transport Architecture Evolution <tae.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae>, <mailto:tae-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/tae>
List-Post: <mailto:tae@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tae-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae>, <mailto:tae-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: tae-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tae-bounces@ietf.org

Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> On 9 Dec, 2008, at 19:01, james woodyatt wrote:

<snip>

> It's a testament to the IETF's extreme antipathy to NAT that we refused 
> to layer new transport protocols like SCTP and DCCP over UDP, as if we 
> imagined that creating new protocols that didn't work with NAT would be 
> the thing to convince the rest of the world that NAT was evil. It was as 
> if we imagined that in the resulting battle for consumer mindshare our 
> new transports would win and NAT would lose. We sacrificed SCTP and DCCP 
> on the altar of anti-NAT fanaticism.
> 
Not so. At least for DCCP, this seems to be re-writing history:

DCCP made a design decision (in an IETF design review, I think, on the 
basis of NAT experience) to not use a stronger checksum and to position 
the 16-bit DCCP checksum and port fields in places where they would 
EXACTLY match those of UDP.

The decision to use the UDP checksum algorithm was largely motivated by 
the desire to allow incremental header checksum update.

SCTP made different design choices, but at least for DCCP, the 
NAT-traversal is not much different to those protocols that already 
traverse NATs.

> If SCTP and DCCP were just user-level library code that any application 
> writer could use freely, without waiting for support from the OS vendor, 
> NAT gateways, or network, they'd be much more widely used today. This 
> strange notion that layering transport protocols over UDP is a gross 
> hack has got to go.
> 
I disagree. This was a conscious decision, see DCCP problem statement 
(RFC4336).

> Layering new transport protocols over UDP is not a hack. It's actually 
> the right architecture AND (because of that) it also happens to work 
> though NAT gateways too.
> 
I am not convinced this is a good long-term decision.

> Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
> * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Inc.
> * Internet Architecture Board
> * www.stuartcheshire.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tae mailing list
> tae@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae
> 
Gorry Fairhurst

_______________________________________________
tae mailing list
tae@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae