RE: [Tsvwg] Re: [tcpm] Revision ofdraft-larsen-tsvwg-port-randomization

Lars had sent an email to retain focus on the port randomization and
hence this is going to my last comment... Pl see inline..

> 
> 
> Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> > Murari,
> ...
> > - or do it in piecemeal, first buy more TCP option space, 
> standardize 
> > any one of the proposals for extending the TCP option 
> space. Then have 
> > an extended port option like yu suggest below. Then think 
> about other 
> > TCP fields requiring extension.
> 
> The problem is that buying more option space is equivalent to 
> requiring a whole new TCP header - it has the same problems 
> with backward compatibility. Previous attempts explored this 

New TCP header == "Mountain" , IMO this is equivalent to using SCTP in
some sense.

TCP option space == "Molehill" , this is a "minimal" change with "some"
backward compat issues which can be addressed.

If I take your above para seriously, then you are in a way implying that
there is no new TCP options possible :-( or in other words users of TCP
would be rationed to use only a few options in the initial SYN exchange.

-Anantha
> space, and I think this was Mark's motivation for a 
> doubled-field TCP header.
> 
> Joe
> 
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Joe Touch                Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment
>                Postel Center Director & Research Assoc. Prof., USC/ISI
> 
> 

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