IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] usage for timestamp options in the wild

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Wed, 26 September 2018 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
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 A225A130F61 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7iw9FTRf_pOG for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803:203:178:142:146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 163C4130F66 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f50.google.com (mail-io1-f50.google.com [209.85.166.50]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 579D829C030 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 04:48:09 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-io1-f50.google.com with SMTP id q5-v6so158139iop.3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoh3Q24YRJWDcpHj/ag0DyZe6ceSKPiLwA52P3+2m1LbtuwO+kn6 pD4px7L5wfUL515Tge1Nf463h2UUguLRSraRDbY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61sodXtoB3HIiw2p75DQF5yf4yYrdvmux6PpldCnqTP7Awx40ujH5GnoDdSTMG5XnEF5T9R83XchKQHSa2m9lc=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c586:: with SMTP id v128-v6mr6328676iof.7.1537991287969; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4f:930e:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR21MB019123F8820BE88FEAA2A9FBB6150@MWHPR21MB0191.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAO249yd-3PBzjtO+Jgpz-qDTROgoKJEQetJTxiepJ34LPqZG+w@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR21MB019123F8820BE88FEAA2A9FBB6150@MWHPR21MB0191.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:48:07 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAO249ydsiYpurTinJE+KR1G0v6Letpr_8jsudSdxdquR_DXisQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO249ydsiYpurTinJE+KR1G0v6Letpr_8jsudSdxdquR_DXisQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb@microsoft.com>
Cc: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@sfc.wide.ad.jp>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006321e70576cb8047"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/m6X0EtyAszUOmoBFFb_ZjNvHskA>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] usage for timestamp options in the wild
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 19:48:19 -0000

Hi Praveen,

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Praveen Balasubramanian <
pravb@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Windows doesn’t do timestamp option by default. It’s 10 byte per packet
> overhead for marginal benefits.
>

Interesting. So, windows derives RTO only from ACK arrival time?
--
Yoshi


>
>
> *From:* tcpm <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Yoshifumi Nishida
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 26, 2018 10:49 AM
> *To:* tcpm@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [tcpm] usage for timestamp options in the wild
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> this is just out of my curiosity.
>
> I've checked traffic archives in CAIDA (https://data.caida.org/datasets/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.caida.org%2Fdatasets%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Ccba356afa7e34779babf08d623d86481%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636735809644749695&sdata=wUz0HExJ2m3RePYxM0abwYwPhl2UeANaV8NAg%2ByKk9c%3D&reserved=0>)
> and WIDE (http://mawi.wide..ad.jp/mawi/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmawi.wide.ad.jp%2Fmawi%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cpravb%40microsoft.com%7Ccba356afa7e34779babf08d623d86481%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636735809644759707&sdata=XgSjCziCC%2BuoJAynXixBQObdqmAk%2FlBxZ%2FTR2CMF3Gk%3D&reserved=0>)
> on a whim and tried to see how many connections utilize timestamps.
>
>
>
> As far as I've checked some archives recently captured, it seems that
> around 60-70% TCP connections use timestamp option. But, this ratio seems
> to be a bit lower as I thought most of implementations these days support
> TS option and activate it by default.
>
> Does anyone have some ideas about it? Am I looking at uncommon data? Or
> there are still many old implementations around? Or, many users have
> disabled the option for some reasons?
>
> --
>
> Yoshi
>
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email