Re: [tcpm] More option space on any segment: draft-briscoe-tcpm-inner-space-00 (was syn-op-sis-02)

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 10/27/2014 11:05 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Joe,
> 
> At 18:54 20/10/2014, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 10/19/2014 5:58 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>> > Chairs and list,
>> >
>> > My individual draft has a new file-name (and title): inner-space-00
>> > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tcpm-inner-space-00>
>> > This is a major rev of syn-op-sis-02
>> > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-briscoe-tcpm-syn-op-sis-02>, but I
>> > won't be using that name any more.
>> > Sorry to confuse everyone by changing the name. But the old name was no
>> > longer relevant.
>> >
>> > I believe the new Inner Space protocol could be a significant advance
>> > for TCP.
>>
>> IMO, you're on the path to implementing TCP inside TCP.
>>
>> That is, right up until a middlebox starts parsing and modifying the
>> inner TCP, at which point you'll need TCP-in-TCP-in-TCP, ad infinitum.
> 
> Nope. Here's a bulleted summary of the section in inner-space that
> explains why this could be a permanent stop on middleboxes, not just a
> step in an arms race. Of course, I can't predict for certain what the
> operators will buy, but this is a plausible argument:
...
> result
> * mess with options and you shoot yourself in the foot

And, as now, we'll all start to worry about that and try to create a
mechanism that avoids letting middleboxes shoot themselves in the foot.
And the result will be TCP-in-TCP-in-TCP, as I noted originally.

We're both just guessing, but I see no reason to believe that "laws for
the lawless" ever ends up getting the lawless to obey the new laws.

Joe