Re: [TERNLI] Forwarding corrupt packets

[Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>]

> I'll not respond the next week, because I'll be on vacation :-)

there's still quite a bit of this week left   :-)


> So I do not think that this adds an additional threat to SCTP.
> But if you have an attack in mind, I would be very interested
> to think about it. We (the authors of the ID) do NOT want to
> make SCTP with that extension weaker than without.

I don't have a particular attack in mind, and what you said
sounds convincing. I just shared my initial feelings...
I'd like to leave the security check to Joe who certainly
knows a lot more about these things (security is one particular
weakness of mine, so I should probably just shut up).


> >       The DATA
> >       chunk should be treated just as if it had been marked for fast
> >       retransmit with the exception that no adjustment should be  
> > made to
> >       the value of cwnd (providing that the receiver can validate a
> >       portion of the packet as being what was sent).
> What we know is:
> - the payload was corrupted (the SCTP common header was intact)
> - the receiver proofed that he got the packet. So it is not in the
>    network anymore
> We assume that this is NOT an indication of congestion. So we can  
> fast retransmit
> it...

I fully agree about fast retransmitting. It's the "no adjustment
should be made to the value of cwnd" part that worries me.

Cheers,
Michael