[tcpm] usage for timestamp options in the wild

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Wed, 26 September 2018 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6626A130DD7 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EQ7RXYj_aoLx for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 193E9128766 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-f181.google.com (mail-it1-f181.google.com []) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E90829C00F for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 02:49:06 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-it1-f181.google.com with SMTP id 74-v6so2432595itw.1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohUPi8rGXPx5yYzHJQOU1Lc0jvR/rABWuwTaTW3565n+x3LQvuF lhvqcEza+9SwMOuJCq17xlMbj7Cfb6VLVdGkDKw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV620j0MEPfTJap3Qqd8vp2jFHKnxUKkMnvkqKRLzvdImo4cG/zyKZJjj1jYjr3L6ffy/XATXlzC66zK9rw5i0kE=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:f605:: with SMTP id u5-v6mr6295911ith.17.1537984144357; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4f:930e:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:49:03 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAO249yd-3PBzjtO+Jgpz-qDTROgoKJEQetJTxiepJ34LPqZG+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO249yd-3PBzjtO+Jgpz-qDTROgoKJEQetJTxiepJ34LPqZG+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000983eb80576c9d678"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/861z901kDYtHSWxDOsic_Ejpqz8>
Subject: [tcpm] usage for timestamp options in the wild
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 17:49:12 -0000

this is just out of my curiosity.
I've checked traffic archives in CAIDA (https://data.caida.org/datasets/)
and WIDE (http://mawi.wide.ad.jp/mawi/) on a whim and tried to see how many
connections utilize timestamps.

As far as I've checked some archives recently captured, it seems that
around 60-70% TCP connections use timestamp option. But, this ratio seems
to be a bit lower as I thought most of implementations these days support
TS option and activate it by default.
Does anyone have some ideas about it? Am I looking at uncommon data? Or
there are still many old implementations around? Or, many users have
disabled the option for some reasons?