IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] UDP Options Implementation Update

"tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Tue, 06 November 2018 03:16 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 DEC9812F295 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:16:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RseVU-Bb5s4M for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:16:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E366127148 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 19:16:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from auth2-smtp.messagingengine.com (auth2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.228]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01DFC1B00081; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 03:16:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D7422EEE; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:16:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 05 Nov 2018 22:16:24 -0500
X-ME-Sender: <xms:hwfhWxBQIgyPT-dzeHYdWNhBR_smaJOvHep3h6dgJ8MMrQB2gGMWgg>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:hwfhW86KtMl-hSQvkKduTN-Etlf5nh4kC79TzMAngRnbfvqqtPkGFw> <xmx:hwfhW5bAjlOVcp4LFXHpfd5DUK05p565Rxv0N-NRYjm9TVeyKeXqoQ> <xmx:hwfhWx7ut_jAO7-oFlzbBGUvRRDjDVm05vFBSklvDcPiXoZxAwDXnw> <xmx:hwfhW8AT_eI3BuWcwSO-r9-2C9glpjBwdL38-ZDNcPvk3E6oxEra8w> <xmx:hwfhW3dCfL6S0yOhbeOz_1e_De0SQMCsG1hyzOAY-Ufgty_Szb0d9g> <xmx:iAfhW3afPM1iJL1BBo0B4lN8Sf-YviE-w6YWQRNYERC6i8CglF1vgg>
Received: from tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk (tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.17.12]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DE0C2102E0; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:16:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 03:16:31 +0000
From: "tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org>
Cc: G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg@ietf.org, touch@strayalpha.com
Message-ID: <20181106031630.GA99767@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: <5BDFE320.9030802@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <20181105063300.GA14271@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <20181105122227.GA12854@bugle.employees.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181105122227.GA12854@bugle.employees.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/thEiQ8GPX0WuVxl8vrQ7tnGvzy0>
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: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 03:16:35 -0000

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 12:22:27PM +0000, Derek Fawcus 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?
> 
> If so, then it would seem this new option would be mandatory to include in
> all UDP packets containing UDP options.
> 

We see UDP Options datagrams being dropped for several reasons. 

The measurements we have vary for each target protocol, but there is
approximately 50% chance of a UDP Options datagram being unable to work
end to end on an internet path.

- [tj]

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email