Re: [tcpm] TCP port names option ID

Wesley Eddy wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 11:21:51PM -0400, Tim Shepard wrote:
>> What about the TCP Sack-Permitted Option which is 2 bytes long?  (And
>> is very common on TCP SYN packets these days.)  If you add that to the
>> list, we're down to 3 bytes for the NAMESTRING, which is only one byte
>> more than the 16-bit port number that we started with.
>>
>> In any case, it seems if we go forward with this, it will be the last
>> option we can add to the TCP SYN packet without breaking something, as
>> we will have (in some cases) completely used up all space for a TCP
>> option.  So before we go forward with this, we should make sure we
>> really want to do that.
>>
> 
> Or reconsider things like:
> http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-kohler-tcpm-extopt-00.txt
> or
> http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-eddy-tcp-loo-03.txt

Those might be useful, but as portnames notes, this is an issue ONLY for
SYNs containing the TCP/MD5 or other TCP-level authentication options.

IF we move forward with TCP-level security for anything other than
routing protocols as a stop-gap until IPsec is used, perhaps, but only
in that case, IMO.

Joe

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