Re: Connection Establishment
"Jeremy Harris [RU-UK]" <jgh@uk.sun.com> Wed, 13 February 2002 15:16 UTC
Message-Id: <200202131515.g1DFF7c10734@sunuk.UK.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:16:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Jeremy Harris [RU-UK]" <jgh@uk.sun.com>
Reply-To: "Jeremy Harris [RU-UK]" <jgh@uk.sun.com>
Subject: Re: Connection Establishment
To: nicold@umkc.edu, Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM, braden@ISI.EDU
Cc: tcp-impl@grc.nasa.gov, jgh@uk.sun.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-MD5: 1/Y3CYI6TTay46+Rh8veCQ==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.4.2 SunOS 5.9 sun4u sparc
Sender: owner-tcp-impl@grc.nasa.gov
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1988
Lines: 57
[David Nicol] > fascinating -- you're suggesting HTTP over datagrams. Or at least > acting like datagrams when all you really want is a datagram. You > can dispense with the connection when all you want is a datagram. Not quite... I'm suggesting a use of TCP which degenerates to datagram behaviour when it can, gives lower latency, client, net and server resource usage when it can, and uses a full TCP connection when it has to for the general case. [Henk Langeveld] >This is beginning to look like the DNS approach: Just use udp >on the first attempt, and revert to tcp when the result would be >too large? No, it's TCP all the way. >Frankly, given that one of the conditions given was sufficient >resistance/defence against DoS attacks, I doubt this will ever >escape the lab. A proper defence against DoS attacks is miserly >conduct with your resources, until you've established at least >some validity in the request - this will require a round trip from >server to client. I agree about the proper defence. But parsing an http GET and searching a kernel URL cache isn't too expensive, and the eager action on it simple to disable when the system load it high or a SYN attack detected. >If you're going to allow initial datagrams carrying data, you'll >have to limit the size of that data, possibly using the same >constraints as the DNS udp/tcp switch referred to above. Yes. >You might >be thinking of a specific application for this web-service, where >you'd control the network stack of both client and server *and* >the network in between. Then you've got your value-add network, >with your own application protocol - why use http? No, I'd like to see it in general use. [Bob Braden] > *> arises: how much data may be piggybacked on a SYN? What window may > *> the sender assume? > *> > >Please see RFC 1644 on T/TCP (July 1994)/ I did. It suggests using the window specified by a previous connection. Which is fine if you had one. Cheers, Jeremy
- Connection Establishment Sebastian Zimmermann
- Re: Connection Establishment David Borman
- RE: Connection Establishment Naidu, Venkata
- Re: Connection Establishment Bob Braden
- RE: Connection Establishment Jeremy Harris - Network Service Providers Division
- RE: Connection Establishment Naidu, Venkata
- RE: Connection Establishment Bob Braden
- Re: Connection Establishment David Nicol
- Re: Connection Establishment Henk Langeveld - NL
- Re: Connection Establishment Sebastian Zimmermann
- Re: Connection Establishment Jeremy Harris [RU-UK]
- Re: Connection Establishment Henk Langeveld - NL
- Re: Connection Establishment Alan Cox
- T/TCP (was: Connection Establishment) Sebastian Zimmermann
- Client Server D'laila Pereira