IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] UDP Options Implementation Update

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Mon, 05 November 2018 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435BF130EC2 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:19:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 ppbRoxAcuUbG for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:18:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (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 62AEE130E4D for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:18:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id y16so14465188qki.7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 08:18:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UfBuMx1gGtj5fYWXqzTmCl5yNLOK/4J7cpha/gdKwvk=; b=DljDRrpR6W0+JWEtzKORKR3VIagtRslFeU26xattiwBDE3EUmCwrAKPnBCudaOB6CR 1tQOXFqtzh84C6Y7KVmEN7tX70wJp0Nmf8yu9uOmEdG4qPzK6ks3nqldx1G0IeYfPo+n N96sLWMXjOJAEnVi5zcnoTTWqGA8+sp8/8bKRGM5MTNj4enyrBlcuYNgmJ4b4kFSXSL0 x6lbOhJb1WtyCylCZpxEqOCH9ZQCUkMQil6/hw0J6ZdvdntYhYoGQnDRiKD9HYClKoeH vJ7Sp5Ody4pC7vLHDs6gUl6lVOO2RU5McQSBbsppDZvRG6D4SOVLCvpWBuHo0auIdRWu 4kMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UfBuMx1gGtj5fYWXqzTmCl5yNLOK/4J7cpha/gdKwvk=; b=VtiR6QsfjLHEXzMRWZfw67stN/bmm+qsrojs6SWd7evFZ+zBlIfHgNqsrvyrWFTnGE BlJlqJUI8myR0ePg3wUp2J0FGZ4+eWpCwvPUtUqvQwhf1eLeV5UWSknBISR7b0y+2sHD ppwF42bIGOqwsu+SP/Tp8AbFI27qU2hUkm2QMy150aGtDDsgbI/x1YuztXblemhPzNYR NBz0PEQMXj4a6ueNn2BM6ErrUImVG5L+J9vAYfr7Uo7P7qPgNr7Te4rJxZ1KXccuA/Eo 9PA/P9fLleMDq/EKW75gbLE4yOByO4ZONN5nVyhSojXCPcKo0Y4AadJKWzom3mTbS17r HGEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLW6i4sjLKnvDuOj/tdW5SFVskvp4g625v/Ok9hv4TlIoSM4Bq2 DZ4YkuGSvL//taTNN16g7QXJVb4mQhkN4ez+fA7kxQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fMS6F7hrdJvaW8FiuYHHd+9+qR3SPW8MzwBzT22CSCf+ao86H2P3vBqKLK4UtHFWx0FccYSF7JUG7tWaP4rxg=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:b407:: with SMTP id u7mr8282323qve.179.1541434737349; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 08:18:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:aed:2022:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:18:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D545954C-8C2C-4138-A72B-6197C849B120@strayalpha.com>
References: <5BDFE320.9030802@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <20181105063300.GA14271@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <20181105122227.GA12854@bugle.employees.org> <CALx6S35-iVdQv7w0raC7+OM6t4HQ0c=x+Ciycz_fxD3a3t5sYA@mail.gmail.com> <D545954C-8C2C-4138-A72B-6197C849B120@strayalpha.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 08:18:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CALx6S37Af8b8u0xjgtPo__9BWBiLGHQAH7QOE15sHRuxm1XoBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org>, G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/1cBQWYs-ZsvGi3FKU7hKC3jPzrw>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] UDP Options Implementation Update
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:19:04 -0000

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> I keep repeating this, but AGAIN:
>
>         OCS is NOT intended as a check against bit errors
>
> That is the role of ACS.

ACS has the exact same problem. If the option type is corrupted then
the ACS can be completely lost and corrupted data is accepted. These
are edge conditions that should be tested in an implementation.

>
> Joe
>
>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 7:24 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:22 AM, Derek Fawcus
>> <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 06:33:00AM +0000, tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At IETF-103 we are presenting the CCO
>>>> (draft-fairhurst-udp-options-cco, see maprg and tsvwg second meeting).
>>>> We think use of the CCO is required on the internet and an checksum
>>>> using the CCO pseudo header should replace the OCS.
>>>>
>>>> xx      4         Checksum Compensation Option (CCO)    - An alternative approach to OCS
>>>
>>> Oh - I like that.
>>>
>>> Have you actually observed any middlebox corruption or mis-checking along the lines mentioned?
>>>
>>
>> That should be explicitly tested by sourcing bad packets. I believe
>> that a single bit flip in the option type of a OCS will not be
>> detected as an error.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>> If so, then it would seem this new option would be mandatory to include in
>>> all UDP packets containing UDP options.
>>>
>>> DF
>>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email