Re: [tcpm] draft-ananth-tcpm-persist-00.txt as a WG document

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Borman [mailto:david.borman@windriver.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 2:05 PM
> To: Murali Bashyam
> Cc: Ted Faber; tcpm@ietf.org; Anantha Ramaiah (ananth); Murali Bashyam
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-ananth-tcpm-persist-00.txt as a WG document
>
>
> On Oct 3, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Murali Bashyam wrote:
> >
> > My intent was that even where TCP implementations have a scheme for
> > dropping connections in the event
> > of resource exhaustion (such as the Linux one does), they have
> > excluded connections in this state.
> > The point i am trying to convey is that the 1122 portion has
> > (mis)guided them in that direction.
>
> If this is true, it should be clarified.  1122 does not in any way say
> that ABORT does not apply to connections in persist state (probing a
> zero window).
>
> ...
> >> In light of that I think that the sentence about "TCP itself SHOULD
> >> not[sic] take any action..." is more confusing than the 1122
> section.
> >> It seems to imply that TCP might react differently to an abort than
> >> the single paragraph in 793, and I don't think that's the case.
> >
> > What's meant here is that it's okay for the connection to get
> > aborted in this state, whatever the mechanism for doing
> > so maybe: TCP can abort the connection and inform the application,
> > similar to the retransmit/persist timeout mechanisms
> > already in place, or the application can choose to abort the
> > connection based policy, or the OS can do so based
> > on resource management criteria. We can re-word that sentence and
> > paragraph to reflect this.
>
> Just to be clear: TCP DOES NOT ABORT THE CONNECTION!  The OS or the
> application can choose to ABORT the connection, but TCP does not make
> this decision.  TCP does have retransmit timers, and it is allowed to
> terminate unresponsive connections, but it does not abort connections
> just because they are in persist state for long periods of time.
> Until you are running out of resources there is no good reason to
> terminate connections in persist state, and when you are running out
> of resources, it is the OS that is deciding whether or not to ABORT
> any TCP connections.

I agree that the retransmit/persist timeout analogy doesn't apply to this situation.
It is ONLY the OS or resource manager or the application that can terminate the connection
In this state.

>
>
> >> Now, a strictly defined abort command seems to somewhat contradict
> my
> >> earlier comments about allowing implementers some freedom.  This is
> a
> >> spot where the standards body has required a specific tool to be
> >> available to applications (and OSes and resource managers): there
> >> must
> >> be a way to annihilate a TCP connection from outside without regard
> >> to
> >> its state or anything else.  The standard is silent about how the
> >> command is used; that's the flexibility here.
> >
> > The abort semantics as specified by 793 are clear, they are not
> > specific to a particular state, it's the opinion
> > of the authors that 1122 excludes it from being applied in this
> state.
>
> Yes, that is an opinion, but it is wrong.  In no way does 1122 say
> that connections in persist state cannot be ABORTed.  What 1122 does
> say is that a connection being in persist state for a long time is not
> sufficient reason *by itself* to terminate a TCP connection, i.e.,
> don't time it out like you would a connection to a non-responsive host.

Just so that we are all clear, i want to summarize the goals of the draft here once again:

1. Clarify the 1122 ambiguity/stance on the sender behavior in persist state.
2. Document (for informational purpose) the consequence of this behavior leading to
the DoS possibility.
3. Specify that the OS/application can terminate the connection in this state using the 793 ABORT interface.

We are NOT documenting the various memory management considerations/issues surrounding the DoS scenario, that's left to the implementers discretion.

We will change the section that's ambiguous regarding the sentence that goes "TCP itself should not take any action...".

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