> On Jun 15, 2018, at 6:37 PM, John Grant <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 15/06/2018 17:17, Tommy Pauly wrote: > > [snip] >> >> Adding back pressure to inbound connections is something that we do need to >> add. The approach Michael suggests, of just ignoring an inbound connection >> until we’re ready to process it, certainly would work. The downside is that >> this requires the caller of the API to manage their own array of pending >> inbound connections. One option we’ve considered is allowing the application >> to specify a “receive connection window size” on a listener, thus defining >> how many more inbound connections they’re ready to handle at a given time. >> What do people think about this approach? > Yes, that should be effective. One thing that needs to be avoided is the > possibility of an attacker (or software error) causing huge numbers of > Connection objects to be created.
I believe that this could be dealt with in any case, by just allowing a max connection limit to be specified (and having a reasonable upper bound by default). But I still prefer Tommy’s proposal over what I described, because it seems to me to be simpler to handle for the application developer. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
