IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03

Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com> Sat, 27 March 2010 04:30 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@microsoft.com>
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 90C763A67BD for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.075
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.075 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.095, BAYES_05=-1.11, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 A8sf+zG8w+lD for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (maila.microsoft.com [131.107.115.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F983A63D3 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) by TK5-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:30:37 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.68) by TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.639.21; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:30:36 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.3.99]) by TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.68]) with mapi; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:30:37 -0700
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03
Thread-Index: AQHKy4dcSKYbIs4o1kKdUE36sVbvi5IFCaGAgABSv4CAAEncAP//jpQQ
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 04:30:33 +0000
Message-ID: <6B55F0F93C3E9D45AF283313B8D342BA68637D47@TK5EX14MBXW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <20100324192236.2D025BCAEF0@lawyers.icir.org> <4BAD02BD.6070907@gont.com.ar> <4BAD4827.7030202@isi.edu> <4BAD861C.1030401@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <4BAD861C.1030401@gont.com.ar>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "mallman@icir.org" <mallman@icir.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] poll for adoption of draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-03
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 04:30:13 -0000

> Clearly, for the sake of this policy, it's better if clients generate
> timestamps such that they are monotonically-increasing across
> connections. If the chances of TIME_WAIT tossing are reduced.

What are the side effects if a computer reboots, keeps the same IP address, looses memory of the previous time stamps, and then tries to reestablish the previous connection?

-- Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email