IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] UDP Options Implementation Update

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Mon, 05 November 2018 17:05 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 4FA11130DC2 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:05:25 -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 IGN-lY-yOEom for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:05:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (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 A9018130E1E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:05:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id d19so15986737qkg.5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:05:16 -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=+0c160JUz9iunPaSwfFeF8WE/hL/HpGd+oaw/9cNHv8=; b=dGY8wf2fP5acoAVWj7KGBDWqMqfEEsTo1qSjXtpHQUi283EFy6XLR6k5NmJ1epDiV1 ebDh+SosYsVcBlEDplsoGyr2z4YsX5XqjftmDu69cM5kUMlXvldHrMuN6s8ubJzeiFN8 E2FKwf9Fb5eHlWIghnXEfth4yTHFUJfTDXl83oBIvUWbMg4dEly5AxMH2N8Aq9WZSCRp XaNYjEICZ1Hv4Z+Nlq55f0m6xd6+dk5Q4/cGz6iggdpg6VmeCQhnlYoOdaQU1ZXQEa/Z wPK1ehwWm7EA6u3jDGLK4TiElkaW2UCK1Rml4Wd+Y31ZpoVocIlKUKO9A+kcTY4UwhG5 9TRg==
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=+0c160JUz9iunPaSwfFeF8WE/hL/HpGd+oaw/9cNHv8=; b=BpauSyso5UkjdXlNnIWOu4Z5uRx4J8zyfd/JjvEX0G2IiqdodPnr4nuBKhLxTjc3/U 4GXFGTYaSKQrVxD47bRIF+05ScfURYHDTPKYnetsBKJG8ZcD+Kl5aQeRONz6+GXRPe+P wmO1oIB+TXjWyf7tcefpGTw3GgNOVR2kgGizcneAKfszs8tmwNjkHSqLS68vLiOglQtN D+JLmDA4AQJvcy+i4Yir2kl2W/88r9c29tZKAH4reFg2ZXIb8DfF5BdJjlZfwuSv83Nx h5u/nOky/QUKrjRfiy6Vb5vtFkHLjnEkRir3wMVrqpxnzYun6r6OKOHm57XNogfdUctz IivQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIb5oYrgCQpLnBkVYb35eC75Ef9wtcSwAZDBR02/sVxRhtiCZJe dq8MgMKW0fttJsZZSTpk9Izon9Mwr+Du1momS/pyH1UB
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cErmv14RVjmWwHGdPtjPSlDv9L1O3nFU74k10wa3Ic37v9DJv3vuUkpI5hmLMBFKDC7qd21moGGT3kiM6LrEQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:b407:: with SMTP id u7mr8468441qve.179.1541437515639; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:05:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:aed:2022:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:05:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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> <9A42C525-6EDA-45D7-BC6A-3D13537E5DB6@strayalpha.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:05:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CALx6S35md8vixTMfWuruXK4ANNTO9EGGCa2LqgOa3uJyoyp6UQ@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/krwKvqV-kWCSHJXUwG66K0UJ3So>
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 17:05:29 -0000

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
You are missing the point. Edge conditions need to be tested against
real protocol implementation. If the FreeBSD implementation is only
tested in an environment where there is no loss or no bad packets,
then little is learned. It is easy to make a protocol work, it is
difficult to make it work well.



>> 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