Matt, Mark and TCP-overSAT lurkers
While I can't argue with the point that spoofing is semantically not part of
TCP. I must bring up the point that by creating the RFC we (the working group)
are creating the standard for carrying TCP over satellite. As a result, we
should include spoofing behavior if only to describe that it is acceptable as a
protocol technique for satellite communications. This being the TCP-over-
satellite working group, we should include it in the toolset for carrying TCP
(and other protocols) over satellite.
....victor barajas
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tcpsat-res-issues-02.txt
From: <[email protected]> at CCGATE
Date: 3/25/98 1:11 PM
Mark,
I don't want to hog this discussion either.
I think that I am just proposing that we have a tighter definition of
applicable spoofing mechanisms, if we are going to include them at all.
We should then only talk about those spoofing mechanisms which meet our
agreed criteria.
Anyhow, its time to hear from others.
Matt
-------------
Original Text
>From MALLMAN@SMTPGATE (Mark Allman) {[email protected]}, on 25/3/98 1:52
PM:
To: HALSEM@INTELSAT (matthew halsey)
Cc: TCP-OVER@SMTPGATE {[email protected]},
TRAVIS@SMTPGATE {[email protected]}
[[ Here I am arguing for the inclusion of TCP spoofing... I am
losing it. Someone slap me! ]]
> It sounds like its almost coming down to a matter of semantics. I
> would propose that if a 'grey' mechanism results in a modified,
> but clearly identified, TCP stream, it may be included. If the
> result is clearly NOT TCP (and I would include UDP here) then it
> shouldn't be included. Some spoofing terminates TCP at gateways
> and uses a more link-sensitive protocol between them. This is
> clearly not TCP and shouldn't be included - in my opinion.
It does not necessarily have to be UDP or some other protocol. It
could be TCP (or some varient of TCP).
For instance, a gateway on the internet can absorb traffic fasters
than a host on the far side of a satellite link (even if the sender
is using a small window). So, it breaks the TCP connection. It can
then use a TCP connection with an appropriate window size over the
satellite channel. So, it is not necessarily using a different
protocol, just a version of the protocol that is more suited to the
environment.
So, I think the result *may* be easily identified as TCP (although,
I agree that it can also be half TCP and half something else).
Of course, spoofing does break the end-to-end semantics of TCP which
would argue that it is no longer a TCP mechanism. But, it does seem
to impact the TCP connection in a very real way. So, I am still
leaning towards including spoofing. Furthermore, I would like to
hear from more folks (privately or on the list) about their opinions
on the matter.
allman
The following is an attached File item from cc:Mail. It contains
information that had to be encoded to ensure successful transmission
through various mail systems. To decode the file use the UUDECODE
program.
--------------------------------- Cut Here ---------------------------------
begin 644 rfc822.txt
M4F5C96EV960Z(&)Y(&-C;6%I;"!F<F]M(&9W+65S,#4N:&%C+F-O;0T*1G)O
M;2!O=VYE<BUT8W`M;W9E<BUS871E;&QI=&5`86-H='5N9RYS<"YT<G<N8V]M
M#0I8+45N=F5L;W!E+49R;VTZ(&]W;F5R+71C<"UO=F5R+7-A=&5L;&ET94!A
M8VAT=6YG+G-P+G1R=RYC;VT-"E)E8V5I=F5D.B!F<F]M(&%C:'1U;F<N<W`N
M=')W+F-O;2`H6S$R.2XT+C4Q+C)=*0T*("`@("`@("`@(&)Y(&9W+65S,#4N
M:&%C+F-O;2`H."XX+C0O."XX+C0I('=I=&@@4TU44`T*("`@("`@:60@3D%!
M,#0X.#$[(%=E9"P@,C4@36%R(#$Y.3@@,3,Z,#<Z-3(@+3`X,#`@*%!35"D-
M"E)E8V5I=F5D.B!B>2!A8VAT=6YG+G-P+G1R=RYC;VT@*#0N,2]334DM-"XQ
M*0T*("`@(&ED($%!,C(U,3@[(%=E9"P@,C4@36%R(#DX(#$Q.C`V.C0T(%!3
M5`T*4F5C96EV960Z(&9R;VT@:6YT96QS870Q+FEN=&5L<V%T+FEN="!B>2!A
M8VAT=6YG+G-P+G1R=RYC;VT@*#0N,2]334DM-"XQ*0T*("`@(&ED($%!,C(U
M,#`[(%=E9"P@,C4@36%R(#DX(#$Q.C`S.C(W(%!35`T*4F5C96EV960Z("AF
M<F]M('-M87!`;&]C86QH;W-T*2!B>2!I;G1E;'-A=#$N:6YT96QS870N:6YT
M("@X+C8N,3`O."XV+C$P*2!I9"!/04$P,S,X-CL@5V5D+"`R-2!-87(@,3DY
M."`Q-#HP-#HS,"`M,#4P,`T*4F5C96EV960Z(&9R;VT@<VUT<&=A=&4N861M
M+FEN=&5L<V%T+FEN="@Q-C0N.#8N,30N,C0P*2!B>2!I;G1E;'-A=#$@=FEA
M('-M87`@*%8Q+C-M:G(I#0H@("`@:60@<VUA,#$W-S`U.R!7960@36%R(#(U
M(#$T.C`S.C0V(#$Y.3@-"E)E8V5I=F5D.B!F<F]M($-O;FYE8W0R($UE<W-A
M9V4@4F]U=&5R(&)Y('-M='!G871E+F%D;2YI;G1E;'-A="YI;G0-"B`@("!V
M:6$@0V]N;F5C=#(M4TU44"`T+C,P03L@5V5D+"`R-2!-87(@,3DY."`Q-#HP
M.#HT-"`M,#4P,`T*365S<V%G92U)9#H@/#=&,D9!,S,Q,#%"1#$W,#!`<VUT
M<&=A=&4N861M+FEN=&5L<V%T+FEN=#X-"DEN+5)E<&QY+51O.B`\,3DY.#`S
M,C4Q.#4R)2Y.04$Q.#<P,$!S;71P9V%T92YA9&TN:6YT96QS870N:6YT/@T*
M1&%T93H@5V5D+"`R-2!-87(@,3DY."`Q-#HP-SHP,"`M,#4P,`T*1G)O;3H@
M;6%T=&AE=R!H86QS97D@/&AA;'-E;4!I;G1E;'-A="YI;G0^#0I297!L>2U4
M;SH@/&AA;'-E;4!I;G1E;'-A="YI;G0^#0I/<F=A;FEZ871I;VXZ($E.5$5,
M4T%4#0I4;SH@;6%L;&UA;D!L97)C+FYA<V$N9V]V#0I#8SH@=&-P+6]V97(M
M<V%T96QL:71E0&%C:'1U;F<N<W`N=')W+F-O;2P@=')A=FES0&-L87)K+FYE
M=`T*4W5B:F5C=#H@4F4Z($DM1"!!0U1)3TXZ9')A9G0M:65T9BUT8W!S870M
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9=RYC;VT-"E!R96-E9&5N8V4Z(&)U;&L-"@``
end
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:14:37 EST