IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-tcpm-rfc1948bis-00

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 10 January 2011 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 76B023A6816 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:26:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ssgKT3-DYofx for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856273A6812 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0ALS7jo011009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:28:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D2B79E6.5060201@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:28:06 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
References: <4D27A097.3040606@gont.com.ar> <4D2B5958.3090304@isi.edu> <4D2B602E.1060408@gont.com.ar> <4D2B62CF.7040307@isi.edu> <4D2B7779.40400@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D2B7779.40400@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-tcpm-rfc1948bis-00
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: <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: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:26:27 -0000

On 1/10/2011 1:17 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> I'm concerned about the performance impact of declaring this a SHOULD.
>>
> I'm not.  We've been using high performance MD5 for such things since the
> days of 186s in a cell phone.  I think it should be a MUST!

The performance impact isn't just computational, FWIW. It's also state.

We had been discussing before on this list that some implementations 
don't keep TWs around; they just keep the first/last in a list, assuming 
that TWs are monotonic. If that's now monotonic within only a single 
socket pair, it increases the state needed to avoid socket reuse during 
TW. That's the non-computational performance impact...

Also, when we talk about performance, we consider not just how fast a 
cellphone can compute the sum, but how many connections/sec a CPU can 
support; putting MD5 in the path will cut that down quite a bit.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email