[tsvwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gwhiteCL/NQBdraft] Should traffic protection be mandatory to implement? (Issue #48)

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

On 24 July 2024 17:24:22 CEST, "Livingood, Jason" <jason_livingood=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> I also don’t think it is necessary or helpful to try to solve for malicious actors here. Any malicious actor can fill up queues and crowd out other traffic simply by sending high rate UDP.
>>> Shallow buffers are not uniquely vulnerable here.
>
>> That's the wrong class of malicious actor.  Theft of service is a different attack (with different malicious actor behavior) from denial of service.  The draft's incentives framework is making strong claims that theft of service attempts are sufficiently counterproductive for the thief so as to make other countermeasures (e.g., traffic protection) unnecessary.  The fact that all the buffers, e.g., both best effort and NQB, can be overwhelmed by a sufficiently large denial of service attack has almost no relevance to that theft of service concern.
>
>[JL] So “theft of service” in this use case would be some software on the home network trying to achieve high throughput on an upstream (outbound) basis to the internet? There are already ways that users can sort of do similar things – such as using their own home router and using QoS prioritization to advantage certain LAN clients (e.g., game console) and to give certain devices or users more bandwidth than others. This is the user making decisions for how to use their connection.

[SM] In the case of an mischieviuos application however that tries to achieve more than its equitable share, the user is not really in control of the decision, unlike when actively configuring priority for an application the users deems important...
So I do not think these are analog situations, as user intent matters.


>
>[JL] So ISTM there are parallels in this use case to what many customers do today. They are provided a certain bandwidth (and may have volumetric usage policies) – shouldn’t it be up the the user to decide how to use that? Wouldn’t the user just  be ‘stealing’ from themselves?

[SM] But by that token an application, that without user intervention uses NQB or L4S is different in that it does not let the user decide. 

Given the lax consideration of security I start to wonder whether the best policy for networks under my control is not simply to drop all packets carrying NQB and ECT(1), and then patiently wait for things to get fixed (or not) from a pure passive spectator position instead of from a victim's view....

Regards
        Sebastian

>
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.