Re: [tcpm] More TCP option space in a SYN: draft-briscoe-tcpm-syn-op-sis-02

Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Thu, 25 September 2014 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398871A0140 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.387
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 xCWzXwUpH6Od for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hubrelay-by-03.bt.com (hubrelay-by-03.bt.com [62.7.242.139]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 123D61A0130 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVMHR02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.41) by EVMHR03-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:59:20 +0100
Received: from EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) by EVMHR02-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:59:20 +0100
Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:59:19 +0100
Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.215.130.93]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s8PFxHTH014819; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:59:18 +0100
Message-ID: <201409251559.s8PFxHTH014819@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:59:15 +0100
To: "Zimmermann, Alexander" <Alexander.Zimmermann@netapp.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
In-Reply-To: <BBC3AC96-CB06-4448-A4D5-70EDEEDD1A99@netapp.com>
References: <201409222045.s8MKjZdD002071@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <542344DA.9020905@isi.edu> <201409250956.s8P9uae9013452@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <BBC3AC96-CB06-4448-A4D5-70EDEEDD1A99@netapp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/4OxoTSu_51kMJopuvrw15iPBZhY
Cc: tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] More TCP option space in a SYN: draft-briscoe-tcpm-syn-op-sis-02
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:59:31 -0000

Alex,

At 16:13 25/09/2014, Zimmermann, Alexander wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Am 25.09.2014 um 05:56 schrieb Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>:
>
> > At 23:25 24/09/2014, Joe Touch wrote:
> >> Hi, Bob (et al.),
> >>
> >> Also, I don't particularly think that putting the options at the end of
> >> the segment serves any useful purpose other than to make this option
> >> handle the option space in a different way than the default DO 
> header field.
> >
> > That's the architectural point.
> > There's also a tactical point. It should get through every middle box.
>
>but do we have not exactly the same problem w/ TCPinc. With TCPinc we have
>the problem too that a middle box doesn't see any understandable after the
>legacy TCP header (e.g. no HTTP header after TCP port 80). So, why it's
>acceptable for TCPinc but not for extending SYN option space? BTW any
>tcpdump user will love to have the options in front of a segment and not
>at the end ;-)

tcpinc is about encrypting payload. I'm interested in extending 
opportunistic encryption to TCP options, which is why I want to 
separate options into 'middlebox' and 'destination' (note: zero 
middlebox options would be valid).

Right now I'm working on a tcpcrypt-like approach, to see if I can 
get the cipher negotiation done in zero RTT (at least on a connection 
resume), so I can use it to encrypt TCP options after the payload (as 
well encrypting any payload, of course).

This will then /enforce/ the middlebox-v-destination categorisation of options.

I left any discussion of this out of syn-op-sis-02, because I'd 
rather not talk about possibilities until I know whether they are 
possible. (I guess that means I need to apologise for talking about 
possibilities on the list, but I couldn't help it, given your posting 
was so close to what I am thinking :|


Bob


>Alex




________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT