Joe,
Although I'm not averse to middleboxes as optional optimizations, I find
the proposed mechanisms aren't quite optional -- they inject option
information into the SYN data. That information would poison a
connection to a legacy receiver if (more to the point, when) that info
isn't removed by a proxy upstream of the receiver.
This paragraph refers to earlier documents discussed in the MPTCP
working group. The new design does not inject option information into
the SYN data. It works like an application layer protocol that sends
messages
in the SYN by using the TFO option. There is no risk of poisoning.
OK, in that case:
- I'm still not averse to middleboxes that accelerate or enhance TCP
We agree
- IMO, TCP always needs to be able to fall back (which should be true now)
This is not a concern with the proposed design
- but I remain concerned with "injection piggybacking"
To which section of the draft are you referring to ?
Olivier
--
------------------------------
DISCLAIMER.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient
you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
