I've been following the multitude of postings on spoofing. Here are some of my
personal opinions.
1) In my opinion, the charter of the group should look at any issues related to
the performance of TCP over satellite. This includes things like spoofing
which, although is not a TCP mechanism, has an effect on TCP performance.
2) Given the above, I would argue that it should be included in the draft. I
don't think it is appropriate to get into too much detail, but it should at
least define what spoofing is, why it is used, and some positives and negatives
about it.
3) Looking at the bigger picture, I think this group should look at spoofing as
a separate group task. It seems to me that there is two sides to spoofing. On
one side, spoofing is "good" because it addresses the performance deficiency of
TCP over a satellite link. (and presumable there is no other "standard"
mechanism that can deliver the performance improvement that spoofing provides)
On the other side, spoofing is viewed as a "bad" because it breaks the end-to-
end semantics of TCP and it's long term viability is questionable with
mechanisms such as IPSEC arriving. It would be my hope that this group can work
together to converge the two sides together where "spoofing" can evolve to be a
standard mechanism which enhances TCP performace over a satellite link.
greg
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tcpsat-res-issues-02.txt
From: [email protected] at CCGATE
Date: 3/25/98 12:52 PM
[[ 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$R.2XT+C4Q+C)=*0T*("`@("`@("`@(&)Y(&9W+65S,#4N
M:&%C+F-O;2`H."XX+C0O."XX+C0I('=I=&@@4TU44`T*("`@("`@:60@34%!
M,#$T-C4[(%=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(T.#<[(%=E9"P@,C4@36%R(#DX(#$P.C0W.C$S(%!3
M5`T*4F5C96EV960Z(&9R;VT@87-S871E86=U92YL97)C+FYA<V$N9V]V(&)Y
M(&%C:'1U;F<N<W`N=')W+F-O;2`H-"XQ+U--22TT+C$I#0H@("`@:60@04$R
M,C0X,CL@5V5D+"`R-2!-87(@.3@@,3`Z-#8Z-3$@4%-4#0I296-E:79E9#H@
M9G)O;2!G=6YS+FQE<F,N;F%S82YG;W8@8GD@87-S871E86=U92YL97)C+FYA
M<V$N9V]V('=I=&@@15--5%`@*$Y!4T$@3&520R`X+C<N-"XQ+S(N,#$M;6%I
M;BD-"B`@("`@("`@:60@3D%!,#`V.#<[(%=E9"P@,C4@36%R(#$Y.3@@,3,Z
M-3(Z,34@+3`U,#`@*$535"D-"E)E8V5I=F5D.B!F<F]M(&=U;G,@8GD@9W5N
M<RYL97)C+FYA<V$N9V]V('=I=&@@15--5%`@*$Y!4T$@3&520R`X+C<N-"XQ
M+S(N,#$M;&]C86PI#0H@("`@("`@(&ED($Y!03$X-S`P.R!7960L(#(U($UA
M<B`Q.3DX(#$S.C4R.C$U("TP-3`P("A%4U0I#0I-97-S86=E+4ED.B`\,3DY
M.#`S,C4Q.#4R+DY!03$X-S`P0&=U;G,N;&5R8RYN87-A+F=O=CX-"E1O.B!H
M86QS96U`:6YT96QS870N:6YT#0I&<F]M.B!-87)K($%L;&UA;B`\;6%L;&UA
M;D!L97)C+FYA<V$N9V]V/@T*4F5P;'DM5&\Z(&UA;&QM86Y`;&5R8RYN87-A
M+F=O=@T*0V,Z('1C<"UO=F5R+7-A=&5L;&ET94!A8VAT=6YG+G-P+G1R=RYC
M;VTL('1R879I<T!C;&%R:RYN970-"E-U8FIE8W0Z(%)E.B!)+40@04-424].
M.F1R869T+6EE=&8M=&-P<V%T+7)E<RUI<W-U97,M,#(N='AT(`T*3W)G86YI
M>F%T:6]N.B!,871E($YI9VAT($AA8VME<G,L($Y!4T$@3&520RP@0VQE=F5L
M86YD+"!/:&EO#0I3;VYG+4]F+51H92U$87DZ($MI;F<@;V8@4V%T=7)D87D@
M3FEG:'0-"D1A=&4Z(%=E9"P@,C4@36%R(#$Y.3@@,3,Z-3(Z,30@+3`U,#`-
M"E-E;F1E<CH@;W=N97(M=&-P+6]V97(M<V%T96QL:71E0&%C:'1U;F<N<W`N
;=')W+F-O;0T*4')E8V5D96YC93H@8G5L:PT*
end
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:14:37 EST