Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:44:55 -0500 From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> To: net@freebsd.org Subject: [braden@ISI.EDU: Re: [e2e] Can we revive T/TCP ?] Message-ID: <20060326144455.GA2856@pit.databus.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Perhaps of some relevance ...
At least two of the negatives apply to any conceivable t/tcp replacement.
----- Forwarded message from Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU> -----
X-Sender: braden@boreas.isi.edu (Unverified)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:11:15 -0800
To: Michael Welzl <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at>
From: Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <001301c60a4a$9831dc60$0200a8c0@fun>
Cc: end2end-interest@postel.org
Subject: Re: [e2e] Can we revive T/TCP ?
At 07:31 PM 12/26/2005 +0100, Michael Welzl wrote:
>Hi everybody,
>
>Here's something that I've had on my mind for quite a while now:
>I'm wondering why T/TCP ( RFC 1644 ) failed. I mean, nobody seems
>to use it. I believe someone explained this to me once (perhaps even
>on this list? but I couldn't find this in the archives...), saying that
>there
>were security concerns with it, but I don't remember any other details.
As the designer of T/TCP, I think I can answer this. There are three
reasons, I believe.
(1) There are very few situations in which single-packet exchanges
are possible, so T/TCP is very seldom a significant performance
improvement. But it does have significant complexity.
(2) Since the server is asked to do a perhaps signficant computation
before the 3WHS has completed, it is an open invitation to
DoS attacks. (This would be OK if you could assume that all
T/TCP clients were authenticated using IPsec,)
(3) I have heard rumors that someone has found an error in the
specific state transitions, of T/TCP although I have never seen
the details.
Bob Braden
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I never met a computer I didn't like.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060326144455.GA2856>