Bruce, Thanks for the reply. I posted a related question May 7 titled "32-bit length in ForwardingHeader of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-02". None of the authors in the group responded. Would you please take a look?
--Michael > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Use case of big RELO packet? > From: Bruce Lowekamp <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, June 10, 2009 6:38 pm > To: Michael Chen <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > > > Michael, > > With the current usages, you're right, there's absolutely no use for > it. And there would need to be a different end-to-end protocol to > support such messages. But we thought it was best to leave the fields > large enough to support it in the future. > > We intend to add an explicit maximum message size to the overlay > config file to make absolutely sure it doesn't happen. Should be in > the next update (hopefully soon). > > Bruce > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Michael Chen<[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Can anyone present some use cases of big RELO messages? Who will send a > > RELO message that is 65K, 500K, 1Meg, 2Gig in size across the overlay? I > > consider that an attack. This is not a file sharing protocol. > > > > I wouldn't be surprise if a node in the overlay refuses to store/relay a > > message bigger than some small number, say 16K (TLS/DTLS write boundary). > > > > Thanks > > > > --Michael > > _______________________________________________ > > P2PSIP mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
