IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tsvwg] Re: [tcpm]Revision ofdraft-larsen-tsvwg-port-randomization

Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov> Thu, 26 July 2007 19:17 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 1IE8pZ-0004bw-8m; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:17:01 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IE8pY-0004bq-6d for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:17:00 -0400
Received: from mx1.grc.nasa.gov ([128.156.11.68]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IE8pW-0006nu-Q7 for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:17:00 -0400
Received: from lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (seraph.grc.nasa.gov [128.156.10.10]) by mx1.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC642C3A0 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from apataki.grc.nasa.gov (apataki.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.35]) by lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l6QJGvPD002313; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apataki.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l6QJGvGF012103; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from apataki.grc.nasa.gov ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (apataki.grc.nasa.gov [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uo9lgV4QkJ3s; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (gr2134391.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.44.123]) by apataki.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l6QJGsIT012088; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:16:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix, from userid 501) id E387E4FE6A; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:13:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:13:07 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Re: [tcpm]Revision ofdraft-larsen-tsvwg-port-randomization
Message-ID: <20070726191307.GB9242@grc.nasa.gov>
References: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5803B6C62F@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <46A8EF0A.1040400@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <46A8EF0A.1040400@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb
Cc: ext@cisco.com, Murari Sridharan <muraris@microsoft.com>, tcpm@ietf.org, "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: weddy@grc.nasa.gov
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="===============1539450793=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:59:22AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> The problem is that buying more option space is equivalent to requiring
> a whole new TCP header - it has the same problems with backward
> compatibility. Previous attempts explored this space, and I think this
> was Mark's motivation for a doubled-field TCP header.
> 


If by "backwards compatibility", you mean falling back to the normal
(small) amount of options space when the other side doesn't support
jumbo-options, this can be acheived.  Maybe you mean something else
though.

By the way, this expired nearly 2 years ago, but's still online for
some reason ...:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eddy-tcp-loo-03.txt

-- 
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email