Re: [tcpm] usage for timestamp options in the wild

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Wed, 26 September 2018 19:44 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6362C126CC7 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ez4p3tWS-yVh for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803:203:178:142:146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 380AD1274D0 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-f177.google.com (mail-it1-f177.google.com [209.85.166.177]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3B3D29C026 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 04:43:57 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-it1-f177.google.com with SMTP id c85-v6so4556357itd.1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfog5M3HnkNZ0TK2ROcM5J96IAMr5OEbgVTOqNCCzwx/oO0TDza0o FP5J0V/BQLu4b2TRb2I6yVvRamsBKbL4OLuNSDk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62LdOZH+Kxbm8wRNlU7jQNQvv7xFmyQqkUHYixY5v0wfi5VmouCIrO4+PjeExAEWjAlVu4qktadtu4PQEL9hSM=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:f605:: with SMTP id u5-v6mr6715557ith.17.1537991036628; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4f:930e:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAK6E8=fdswhzTKs6-cdCj7Q=Cuu288tK--48sj4Jvrw28aqh8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO249yd-3PBzjtO+Jgpz-qDTROgoKJEQetJTxiepJ34LPqZG+w@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR21MB019123F8820BE88FEAA2A9FBB6150@MWHPR21MB0191.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <CAK6E8=fdswhzTKs6-cdCj7Q=Cuu288tK--48sj4Jvrw28aqh8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:43:55 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAO249ychnKJwuWV6_+yyGjmQ91w-d7UxNv3K=BVoc8g-ZtvH+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO249ychnKJwuWV6_+yyGjmQ91w-d7UxNv3K=BVoc8g-ZtvH+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Cc: Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000067f5420576cb717c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/Z5FGFDzmHId9MzruIc_KxBHhiOY>
Subject: Re: [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 19:44:05 -0000

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Praveen Balasubramanian
> <pravb=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Windows doesn’t do timestamp option by default. It’s 10 byte per packet
> overhead for marginal benefits.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: tcpm <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Yoshifumi Nishida
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 10:49 AM
> > To: tcpm@ietf.org
> > Subject: [tcpm] usage for timestamp options in the wild
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > 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.
> how recent are the archives?
>

They are 2018 data.

>
> AFAIK TS is enabled by default on Linux, FreeBSD, and iOS. Linux has
> that by default more than a decade
>

that's why I was wondering.
--
Yoshi