IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com> Thu, 08 November 2007 16:57 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IqAgg-0008QM-OJ; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:57:02 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IqAgf-0008P4-ML for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:57:01 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IqAgf-0008Ov-Bd for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:57:01 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IqAgb-0003ad-W3 for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:57:01 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,390,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="248585294"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2007 08:56:57 -0800
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA8GuvSr006138 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:56:57 -0800
Received: from [10.21.107.22] (sjc-vpnasa-791.cisco.com [10.21.107.22]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA8GuvQ6025674 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2007 16:56:57 GMT
Message-ID: <47333FD9.8010508@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:56:57 -0800
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?
References: <121882.10140.qm@web31702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4730B50A.1030102@isi.edu> <20071106190845.GC5881@elb.elitists.net> <4730BC89.5000909@isi.edu> <20071106192746.GE5881@elb.elitists.net> <20071106193912.GF5881@elb.elitists.net> <4730C9D6.1020700@cisco.com> <20071106203212.GG5881@elb.elitists.net>
In-Reply-To: <20071106203212.GG5881@elb.elitists.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=976; t=1194541017; x=1195405017; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mahesh@cisco.com; z=From:=20Mahesh=20Jethanandani=20<mahesh@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[tcpm]=20Is=20this=20a=20problem? |Sender:=20; bh=/8pV3J2ddhXrypzZkKqVoINlR/+7Hm7McapIk9i2Plw=; b=B31ALp1BhpzAeJm9drjkKUohHwPbS+gMnY58wIwF/ZE0JfUiwTNVE1+9mCk1nm3ejQYxdPxz qM7oPZVsdgaAKBQIEbWQ6mHjx2DNqcdgBP4ul0XTHPQ8zLlpzDpOtsD5;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=mahesh@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


Ethan Blanton wrote:
> Yes; however, I agree with Joe (and others) that in the situation you
> are *actually* trying to solve, this is not particularly relevant.  If
> you are short on resources, the distinction between "not making
> progress due to zero window" and "not making progress for some other
> reason" does not seem important.  As previously mentioned, zero window
> does _not_ indicate a malicious host in any way.
>   
Where is the fairness argument in knocking connections off without 
making distinctions? A connection that is not making progress because of 
congestion in the network is a transient behavior and is very different 
from a connection that continues to advertise a zero window. The former 
is much harder to do and requires TCP stack changes. Zero window 
connection can be made to happen on a whim (as we successfully did) on a 
large number of connections from a user level program with little or no 
privileges.

/mahesh


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email