Hi, Joe, On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Olle, > > On 7/27/2016 5:41 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote: > > ... > > > > This mess caused me sadly to suggest that we need to discuss breaking > the assumption that TCP delivery is always reliable > > and implement retransmits even over TCP in the STUN protocol. STUN was > designed to discover middleboxes > > with a focus on NAT. This is just another middle box to discover. > None of this is news. One of the "features" of middleboxes is > "transparent" TCP relaying. That device always destroys TCP reliable > delivery semantics. > > This has been known since the mid 90s'. Right. IIRC, you and I were part of a number of conversations about this in PILC, while working on https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3135.txt. My reason for asking Olle to bring this forward is that we're having a lot of conversations (starting at the IAB with https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/marnew/ and headed toward IETF working groups) with wireless carriers about encryption and about UDP-based transports, and I wanted to level-set on what people are (still) seeing these days. Thanks, Spencer > The challenge with STUN has always been that many middleboxes *do not > want to be found*. > > > The bigger picture is even more scary - what happens if our reliable > transport suddenly no longer is reliable? > > > > One developer from a well known mobile system vendor said “well, I guess > that using TLS may help”… > > Ask them *how* they think TLS helps. TLS relies on TCP semantics. > > Joe > >
