Re: [tcpm] SYN/ACK Payloads, draft 01

"Adam Langley" <agl@imperialviolet.org> Wed, 13 August 2008 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CAE28C16E; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3292A3A6D1D for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.688
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.289, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LsvJQLjNzFzg for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.229]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B9E3A68F0 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so170294rvf.49 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=zecp7QaRaa5DiK5zC522NA/85enx41IzU9zvCKQ75WM=; b=cqorEfS+YTw6AQVCvf8l3tXH30WGhDOoslHr7Nf7ZvU1Tzu3qhK0a1yQbIf3OK5y5q rjdIDwDuB9Quq2uHGqetOvEPwBs+1Pt517J/8eAbnZlfjRLP8wBlhZBuxNjaSYegd9fQ jI4rZS3ypKy/RRAZ1oYccAiPM2JOQoyWahtE8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=POZS7J+QeoUKZP259CJbvtCUvJr7l23eUzxEFdpaRn3JjlDILYkznx7nxyCb5ZKw32 7FBw5oSwaV3Xj5rIwtLDELUaXkesD0/H87cSQxXHy3lg7dNXTXzm/SHYI+lsoL467tzO k1Ri8X3etomenLsEgE3+GtZySNGpaYV4E3qR4=
Received: by 10.141.18.15 with SMTP id v15mr254905rvi.296.1218666338570; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.37.3 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <396556a20808131525i20dabf06w7a7a11e3468e541a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:25:38 -0700
From: "Adam Langley" <agl@imperialviolet.org>
To: "Joe Touch" <touch@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <48A35CFA.4060709@isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <396556a20808111035s2b974233o1e9d3671e82e3350@mail.gmail.com> <20080813172752.AA7A650846@romeo.rtfm.com> <396556a20808131047q781675a3if23d727ef5ae918f@mail.gmail.com> <20080813181630.A1E6750848@romeo.rtfm.com> <396556a20808131145y1be0fb4saeb7bbf74d078268@mail.gmail.com> <20080813195027.C4C5B50848@romeo.rtfm.com> <396556a20808131307r65a9f6a0oe4365be029620b2c@mail.gmail.com> <48A35CFA.4060709@isi.edu>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 416c0ad862b734e4
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] SYN/ACK Payloads, draft 01
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> This is, IMO, the most compelling argument that this mechanism ought to
> be bound to a TCP port, not a TCP option.

Although that removes any ability for it to be opportunistic since the
latency of trying an alternative port is very high. Many sites will
drop SYNs on ports other than 80 or 443. Even if the original port
were to advertise the alternative port for future connections, many
clients are behind firewalls that will restrict their outbound
connections.


AGL

-- 
Adam Langley agl@imperialviolet.org http://www.imperialviolet.org
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm