IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward[WasRe: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Tue, 27 November 2007 03:48 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwrQr-0007VU-Az; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:48:21 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IwrQq-0007UF-Gg for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:48:20 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwrQq-0007Rh-5i for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:48:20 -0500
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwrQl-0003sO-S5 for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:48:20 -0500
Received: from [70.211.147.178] (178.sub-70-211-147.myvzw.com [70.211.147.178]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAR3luVL022873; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:47:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <474B935E.4040207@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:47:42 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mahesh@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Summary of responses so far and proposal moving forward[WasRe: [tcpm] Is this a problem?]
References: <20071126161259.29EFA2FC343@lawyers.icir.org> <474AF34B.40805@isi.edu> <474B3C35.30207@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <474B3C35.30207@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, mallman@icir.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1375872469=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org


Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>> Note also that DOS attacks would likely not keep TCP connections around
>> with zero windows AND continue to ACK - they'd stop ACKing, the
>> connection would drop for *that* reason, and be recovered.
> Quite the contrary. Our experimentation revealed that DoS attackers
> responded reliably with an ACK to all zero window probes and that
> connections stayed in established state for days.

OK - so how do you know these were attacks? Or are you calling any
consumption of resources you don't expect an attack?

I.e., all flash crowds are attacks?

Joe




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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email