Re: [tsvwg] [Tsvwg] lookup time (was Re: WGLC for Port Randomization starts now (April 1st))

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Tue, 16 June 2009 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED843A69C3 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UMkM+oglsbmm for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f168.google.com (mail-gx0-f168.google.com [209.85.217.168]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F763A698B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk12 with SMTP id 12so623353gxk.13 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5Mx7GYBVjk9fWx6S1aWttOw73Q2/JxfbcgqcUcLvvkw=; b=ZuDZEN3xxJ6m51G3H5/Vz0dc2qhXMrnS/AVvIz8/zzrstv7FO29sKYXs7hWN6tY2b9 +w6TfAFgLlrLWHgvn//CQNu1SW/qIyQ9Rf3NvtDiVg4U75mlt4tm3YhCpuBRcX+T4kRI 7mdS3uq5AU1geYCMHcHPHkULpySweXeZQSTgQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=elmp5x+qnKIzwgR6DQZcSOu1e3ni2vOCBwfTOo4zYS3YlD1jHDbLtdJwjM4jcaKD1T mO3wLNfuS+TDq5XvolpKtKGMZoaRDz3i+cFWzq3JTYyXOd0bG9EQhGg7nT6/KInrMXMk U5Nl11St9ku7iAr0POG4wAx7U5ofY6iYdUZdg=
Received: by 10.100.208.8 with SMTP id f8mr10397382ang.64.1245156552304; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?172.16.1.132? (host97.190-139-184.telecom.net.ar [190.139.184.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm2242210ywi.5.2009.06.16.05.49.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Fernando Gont <fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A3794C0.6000002@gont.com.ar>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:49:04 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mallman@icir.org
References: <20090615123717.B09372E00C3@lawyers.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090615123717.B09372E00C3@lawyers.icir.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
OpenPGP: id=D076FFF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Alfred Hönes <ah@tr-sys.de>, "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Tsvwg] lookup time (was Re: WGLC for Port Randomization starts now (April 1st))
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:50:51 -0000

Mark Allman wrote:

>> If you retry random port, chances are that you may retry the same port
>> more than once, instead of trying a different port that might be
>> available. The larger the number of ports in uses, the more likely
>> this would be. (see the pseudo-code).
> 
> Sure.  Of course.  But, we can put this in concrete terms it would
> seem.  I.e., if we use something like alg. 3 then for a given connection
> ID we will not test for some port X again before exhausting all the
> non-X ports.  In something like alg. 2 you can in fact check X more than
> once with a probability defined by the port usage at the given time and
> also not test for all possible ports.

Agreed. And in the worst case, because of checking X more than once, you
may end up not checking other port numbers that might have worked.

-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1