Re: [tcpm] 793bis: TCP Quiet Time
Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com> Thu, 19 December 2019 18:42 UTC
Return-Path: <mattmathis@google.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 27A54120AE1 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:42:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 QFSKmTqnqqd2 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:42:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x12b.google.com (mail-il1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71E8D120AC5 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:42:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id z12so5697500iln.11 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:42:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FPj4cNHfUmQSXN2CDiTaacpxQ6sD9YhORgM4h01tHPk=; b=anl9iirKRrOZlMnn2lff6uqTKjpSfZ9SVtBa6VXiLrAZpYDCSzpCSpOORxRSWBn8Ub WPZaQ9Kx9uzD6F5laGdSG0u59JkRwjH7TxOd7O90tLizz+fesmft0w/aQC4Sgy3UwM3b OHCV+BJiWFIGNsi6HsJth3ipQrmUpo3TDpfnNySq7+HFvl0rdlkepsVd/7uLuH7zrCUO OKVVuHUOVmG7ngdvfL1FTbRKEJ0kZxaL2pOQQvfEE1uoDJDM9hToQjmF0QUOq4d7jC4d 3LpU7gQF1AL/cuQ9SsAGei6zgo0kljawV36tWO7SzVrxM4F7qsTetEh4tjeophk7mk1T c7Yw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FPj4cNHfUmQSXN2CDiTaacpxQ6sD9YhORgM4h01tHPk=; b=LJPCNUNsynwZSOmjhhfRGoic//IYH6THnToAX3RyiGkcilK1s/5yp0HtHo69Azhr88 R7fAkalzLuF7LRGwPTbiWbH0lxqMln1k5W0ieEK+2dQIZ9fO6wbEv4t1xrVidYOsNfH7 CrGJ8ACNPV1SEI99m4DXzmjbtQuYOJbckyGpVxApIYrWPy5wZumR5/DqbiIRjzsIJz5c UIR6pDKHpAwA/cN6tUTdHIbo38HKv1Et6zZ1CbCA7MgWCDaETBu/8GpqYBIqoCeLu19Q SB5fKPCy8jvIlxyTEC55dY4LmPVz7KUCj3cIC3tIcVy3mQSoveC2kZwaTASTI7P/btGq GK2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW+4lcK9dwQDW4iBzMUkCDSpRQYAaXUU9707ndzWVGxtqc0B65Q gdP+kMyIFA/tYE8WoT36X85uvtshz/OgTWMo3ydRAg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLYTrKnA9sLlJuHRg6KLau0yZRg866VsJCgGoLeYvV+5J+rzoDrIi1i68XP3s0rW5uWeO99O33onm1qwajki8=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:ba93:: with SMTP id t19mr8881027ill.0.1576780966459; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:42:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <D49DA844-F09C-4878-915D-A402580499D7@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <D49DA844-F09C-4878-915D-A402580499D7@strayalpha.com>
From: Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:42:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAH56bmAwKDbYQuyMdGeH+e4WjdtAjssUUMcNGzh1twWuL_FVRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000065916e059a12ed34"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/jSr5-qQWjveXuOYdaAWqSNsuyXA>
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 18:42:55 -0000
What Joe said s/effect/opportunities/ Is there standards language anywhere about successive connections sharing sequence space and timestamps? If there is, I missed it. 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 Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 6:57 AM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote: > 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> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 8:28 PM Yuchung Cheng >> <ycheng=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:33 PM Wesley Eddy <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 >> 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