IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] UDP Options Implementation Update

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 05 November 2018 16:21 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 926C7130DD4 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:21:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham 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 7WyBHTGgk2Mn for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:21:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 CAC14130E0C for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:21:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: 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=6AM8mcLU8UtyVlQO3uSohSLvWJQ0jSELAIM+0E7IFlg=; b=gXU+KP7w9E5Zak+Jupm6COmXV /r10JKc9nCmwT4oi4chGWflhwc2lkNbhWSzePzII/+oAanaPg0/eo24D6dzYlHby70pPVWkE+0ukl xLd0rkMb08nr5tR4d/fJl8qr/rHz2lK3/SPvxgdiVvE7+Ef75kSiabj28ry14IhpzMwFu4hb4YB/O EAxV9L4kpJQrmcbldLKbUVUHiBYl5sCxHrC2WDmq92hnAO//boua6o8s0xwxMDc0Phke3vLVUBxBd 4YveS5Zc5g5bdNskxCnT8FNXA3X+mghKDhPEWCd9mtOsClkIWcskh0shk2VtGZmw7SvNWIPv1JgNY mZxnFkIGA==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.240.132]:51808 helo=[192.168.1.16]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1gJhcj-0038Fc-UX; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:21:13 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16B92)
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37Af8b8u0xjgtPo__9BWBiLGHQAH7QOE15sHRuxm1XoBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 08:21:08 -0800
Cc: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org>, G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9A42C525-6EDA-45D7-BC6A-3D13537E5DB6@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> <CALx6S37Af8b8u0xjgtPo__9BWBiLGHQAH7QOE15sHRuxm1XoBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
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/LFr5dec6QnuU8t1MwZUhdFddtgk>
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 16:21:22 -0000

I already addressed this issue. It would be rejected by a receiver that requires it, but the default is legacy behavior in which all options are silently ignored.

> On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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