Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time
Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 19 December 2019 14:57 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
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 31C3612002F for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 06:57:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 CNOezRV-SauQ for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 06:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E490120059 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 06:57:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Sh8xtmjc1RCNFpvfZvZe+wYlW2H9EFUh5EPGiB/9lk0=; b=akLLO3KwOnt0KbBYQRSsfv52c lGGHjoHa6E+2OclK89cduHYZZmIoIhH9Jjw2wObq/yMkTYV23zIVisrhnhAYV1VkcdxtvsAdNy645 Wx+dciIpL+3lusP7IbrR2XdrYkTzzwGZV5u+/WnVlQ4jfDRv73EI87uvrfFkhh077fKO1+4HjjDkB Oe87mUxWOKFvVt92DPHmRkmJIwhukwIEEQPqTYgDe6WZdlIygfrcsWtimWmFUwGMKCm6BXb9Hz1iN eA0/MLUNFgiWw+g1ccpJinauPlo2YOjHvfY/zGTJPyv6pJDdkKyiK8KbdyW+eVLlwbnhHGV4If4KZ TL19ARF0Q==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:59605 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1ihxEs-002rhS-6S; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:57:22 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0DC306B6-15A3-4A54-9875-2B2F439DF216"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH56bmA0GW7mFcr_AxMr0ad=OSkyv8rHSTGJ9BguQr_Qocaz_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 06:57:17 -0800
Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <D49DA844-F09C-4878-915D-A402580499D7@strayalpha.com>
References: <5D669BDA.3000506@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5D66A044.3060904@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <5d11289c-0174-8a5e-7f47-b0110564a601@mti-systems.com> <CAK6E8=e6QYTdcc4K=JT2PnuzmJGBWhfcRPydhaUiq24nM77mVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADVnQyn1odkbtB1-GETZYtCy66AoaD9FkSg-OBTD=h_6ou0NhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH56bmA0GW7mFcr_AxMr0ad=OSkyv8rHSTGJ9BguQr_Qocaz_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Mathis <mattmathis=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/iIZa6HX10bWpHYcwdcu1hDecg48>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time
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: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:57:25 -0000
This discussion seems to be overlooking the effect of timestamps. Joe > On Dec 18, 2019, at 9:39 PM, Matt Mathis <mattmathis=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > I am under the impression that web servers do something different: Normally the client sends the FIN, and the server holds FIN wait, but often discards it before 2MSL to reduce memory pressure, however if the server receives a new SYN for the same connection 4tuple (before it is discarded), the server has the option to continue in the same sequence space, one byte after the FIN. > > I haven't looked, but what happens if a connection is in FIN wait, and a new SYN arrives? > > Thanks, > --MM-- > The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay > > We must not tolerate intolerance; > however our response must be carefully measured: > too strong would be hypocritical and risks spiraling out of control; > too weak risks being mistaken for tacit approval. > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 8:16 PM Neal Cardwell <ncardwell=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 8:28 PM Yuchung Cheng > <ycheng=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:33 PM Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com <mailto:wes@mti-systems.com>> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think I noticed anyone responding to Gorry's comment below, and > > > I haven't made any alterations in the 793bis draft with regard to this > > > (other than fixing some spelling mistakes). I wanted to pull this into > > > its own thread in case other people have thoughts or would like to > > > discuss further what the quiet time concept's relevance is in 2020. > > I probably am missing something. What's the issue of the text? Linux > > to my knowledge does > > not implement this quiet time. > > But there are other injection attacks or basic checksum issues etc to > > corrupt TCP. (Serious) application that solely relying on TCP's > > integrity is signing up for troubles already ... > > I would agree with Yuchung's remarks and the general point that the > "TCP Quiet Time Concept" from RFC 793 does not seem to be of practical > importance today, from a number of perspectives: > > o I'm not aware of any major TCP implementation that actually follows > the "TCP Quiet Time" approach. > > o Most production applications AFAIK end up using SO_REUSEADDR, > indicating a need to reuse ports quickly and a lack of concern about > this kind of issue with old packets ending up mixed into new > connections. > > o Applications that care about this should be using cryptography. > > o Users today expect to be able to reboot a machine and get back on > the network in less than 2 minutes. > > best, > neal > > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm> > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1 of … Gorry Fairhurst
- [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 2 of … Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 2… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 2… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 2… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 2… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Jonathan Morton
- Re: [tcpm] review of rev 14 of RFC 793 bis part 1… Rodney W. Grimes
- [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Neal Cardwell
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Matt Mathis
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Joe Touch
- [tcpm] 793bis: variable MTU Wesley Eddy
- [tcpm] 793bis: reset generation section Wesley Eddy
- [tcpm] 793bis: IPv6 jumbograms Wesley Eddy
- [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: variable MTU Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Matt Mathis
- [tcpm] 793bis: dead gateway detection Wesley Eddy
- [tcpm] 793bis: delayed ACKs Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID David Borman
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: delayed ACKs Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Matt Mathis
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Fernando Gont
- Re: [tcpm] 793bis: IP ID Joe Touch