Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (zero copy)
Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sun, 01 August 2021 22:15 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 240173A150A for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 15:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 vaUikWdwJ5cZ for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 15:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73B253A1502 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 15:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=jJNPhWElVFgVSdC7r0mWcS1HlXeN0jnMZaWeor55+9w=; b=ZNCf6TM3Nd2cmEWFWA3wX5T93N YzpL3Ev6bOGaHpNp74UYds2s5myIturx2tCrgzKS8f6CBBMmvLD8c1pYlSsdPy+fekVtclWda385U l6A4R2y6lEA77t6VJm/ZTjEXBZba1oN59f1aTS/fXuAe5X1A6sGooiWcxBrxVhMVx0gBpXcSEhHzD H3MG9w6e9xrIYOeaoqJC3QxEi27TpCbDBwk5Gkk9HmSZy+dESf885JsgFdU88b9xFRJc1v2VKTOtS s5bMfbcCDWFlTbRn8bg+61ZW5e8icbNO36lRoKAP6/Lem0pIH506lfuKEPldwkadTP92reNH+gQDT M07XVE+g==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:52616 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1mAJjW-001zm4-3e; Sun, 01 Aug 2021 18:15:02 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <058C1360-D1BF-4C15-A0E3-D1C98DC8C45F@lurchi.franken.de>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2021 15:14:57 -0700
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <04C250F8-7C10-4300-862B-7FFD739CA8B3@strayalpha.com>
References: <058C1360-D1BF-4C15-A0E3-D1C98DC8C45F@lurchi.franken.de>
To: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18G82)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/FS9JHg_aBBawmpxGY8oDnwl8jC0>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (zero copy)
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: Sun, 01 Aug 2021 22:15:08 -0000
Right, but for UDP the receive MTU is the one we care about. Joe > On Aug 1, 2021, at 3:05 PM, Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrote: > > >> >> On 1. Aug 2021, at 23:43, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 2:24 PM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 1, 2021, at 2:19 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2021, 12:42 PM Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> ... >>>> Had we limited the option length as a few suggested when this work started, we would not have FRAG. >>>> >>>> We don’t know what others are, but we also don’t know that the first frag will have hundreds of bytes of available space either. >>> >>> >>> Actually, we do know that. The minimum MTU in IPv6 is 1280 and the minimum MTU for IPv4 is 576. >>> >>> >>> The min MTU for IPv4 is 68.. >> >> Per RFC791 it's 576 bytes. > RFC 791 makes a requirement on the receiver, not on the links. > > Page 25 of RFC 791 reads: > > Every internet module must be able to forward a datagram of 68 > octets without further fragmentation. This is because an internet > header may be up to 60 octets, and the minimum fragment is 8 octets. > > Therefore, the min MTU for IPv4 is 68. > > Best regards > Michael >> >>> >>> If someone we're so inclined they could fill up the first fragment packet with nothing but options and start the payload in the second. That means you'll have at least 520 bytes for options. >>> >>> >>> That includes BOTH per-fragment and per-reassembled datagram options. >>> >>> But all this is academic since there's no use case other than DoS attack that would need anything close to that much space. >>> >>> >>> That was true until FRAG too. >>> >>> Again, this is a new decision - to limit the option space. >> >> I don't know what that means. >> >>> >>> Joe >> >
- [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (zero c… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Paul
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joseph Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Tom Herbert
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Sebastian Moeller
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joe Touch
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… C. M. Heard
- Re: [tsvwg] UDP options and header-data split (ze… Joe Touch