Perhaps of some relevance ...
At least two of the negatives apply to any conceivable t/tcp replacement.
----- Forwarded message from Bob Braden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:11:15 -0800
To: Michael Welzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Bob Braden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [e2e] Can we revive T/TCP ?
At 07:31 PM 12/26/2005 +0100, Michael Welzl wrote:
>Hi everybody,
>
>Here's something that I've had on my mind for quite a while now:
>I'm wondering why T/TCP ( RFC 1644 ) failed. I mean, nobody seems
>to use it. I believe someone explained this to me once (perhaps even
>on this list? but I couldn't find this in the archives...), saying that
>there
>were security concerns with it, but I don't remember any other details.
As the designer of T/TCP, I think I can answer this. There are three
reasons, I believe.
(1) There are very few situations in which single-packet exchanges
are possible, so T/TCP is very seldom a significant performance
improvement. But it does have significant complexity.
(2) Since the server is asked to do a perhaps signficant computation
before the 3WHS has completed, it is an open invitation to
DoS attacks. (This would be OK if you could assume that all
T/TCP clients were authenticated using IPsec,)
(3) I have heard rumors that someone has found an error in the
specific state transitions, of T/TCP although I have never seen
the details.
Bob Braden
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I never met a computer I didn't like.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
