IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments.

"Adam Langley" <agl@imperialviolet.org> Mon, 04 August 2008 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175F53A6CF2; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
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 33F2B3A6CF2 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.298, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 I1-kMLdcEPUh for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.236]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6813F3A6AB8 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so1803751rvf.49 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=Xc8uRwMs30Aetd9JUNe6lCmYH9gLDxOJxPZILEYLGkM=; b=o6blW7TAN9JOLELGuAneH0uGFpB2ACA0r+Ty/dkyQdlB32TDzfV9MxtqVQD6EM5EY2 8fPdCqjZBvlMcnEM5FmoLeqQhXZk4qZ7rabci5+AigQkk/lCcw2rW0o11cXNVU09/P/y /KLA4pbqFsNdkv/GY6IXwidP/eGmVPseETK5Q=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=abtdb5LycHxpmiOJ2zvoaI12Xn1qsAGTDtDzdaJNve6lWR/FepaRC7twzsoPTBs/Yd hqpnFKu1BEZJt0AlYxk5r30tbn7FgnXLvSb5t+C74EnG24E/Evo2fT1wNRxrpN8O2h1O 1+wri3FmLPYWAIul4yLwW+EdI824OtZp9Ftxo=
Received: by 10.141.203.7 with SMTP id f7mr7643724rvq.7.1217868273106; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.37.3 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <396556a20808040944q1dcaa286h143fba4c31e788d8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:44:32 -0700
From: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <48971214.6070303@isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC58058C2FD4@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <48939933.3030601@isi.edu> <0C53DCFB700D144284A584F54711EC5805923E25@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com> <48971214.6070303@isi.edu>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 22c4d9051c1e90e5
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <ananth@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP-AO review comments.
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> | Repacketization combines multiple segments into one, thereby dictating a
> | new ipid for example, so such things aren't considered messy, the
> | question becomes how much flexibility you want to provide here...
>
> It would be difficult to support repacketization and ensure
> authentication, AFAICT. How do others feel?

At the moment, TCP MD5 requires disabling LRO and TSO (both software
and hardware). There's no reason that hardware couldn't support AO
aware repacketisation in the future, but at the moment, it's
incompatible.



AGL

-- 
Adam Langley agl@imperialviolet.org http://www.imperialviolet.org
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email