I have no idea who was the reviewer (academic or industry or whatever).
However, he didn't actually object to the assertion that latency increases
with congestion; he only raised the question of the which latency values
would be typical/reasonable for a congestion DoS attack. Notice also that
the r
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 13:11, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:
> " he/she doubts that delays increase significantly under network congestion
> since he/she thinks that the additional queuing is something mostly in small
> routers such as home routers (and maybe like the routers used in our
> e
" he/she doubts that delays increase significantly under network congestion
since he/she thinks that the additional queuing is something mostly in
small routers such as home routers (and maybe like the routers used in our
emulation testbed) "
Wow, this is the first time I've found an academic chal
Hi Damian, thanks, that's right; actually in high-latency and 10% loss, you
get _much_ better performance than either TCP or Quic. However, these are
not as common scenarios as clogging due to DDoS... So we still want to find
relevant data, to know which ranges of latency and loss make sense.
Guys
Getting (and releasing) numbers from DDoS attacks will be challenging for
most, but I think your research could apply to more than just DDoS. There
are often cases where one might want to work from an environment which has
very poor networking. As an extreme example, in 2007 I got online from an
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 2:12 AM Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 05:30, Amir Herzberg wrote:
>
> DDoS is very very cheap, if there is a single global egress for given
> interface then the DDoS traffic can easily be 100 times the egress
> capacity (1GE egress, 100GE DDoS).
Thanks. Howe
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 05:30, Amir Herzberg wrote:
> That's actually roughly the range of losses we focused on; but it was based
> on my rough feeling for reasonable loss rates (as well as on experiments
> where we caused losses in emulated environments), and a reviewer -
> justifiably - asked
Damian, thanks!
That's actually roughly the range of losses we focused on; but it was based
on my rough feeling for reasonable loss rates (as well as on experiments
where we caused losses in emulated environments), and a reviewer -
justifiably - asked if we can base our values on realistic values.
I suggest testing with a broad variety of values, as losses as low as 5%
can be annoying, but losses at 50% or more are not uncommon.
Damian
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:41 AM Amir Herzberg wrote:
> Dear NANOG,
>
> One of my ongoing research works is about a transport protocol that
> ensures (crit
Dear NANOG,
One of my ongoing research works is about a transport protocol that ensures
(critical) communication in spite of DDoS congestion attack (which cannot
be circumvented), by (careful) use of Forward Error Correction. Yes,
obviously, this has to be done and used carefully since the FEC cle
10 matches
Mail list logo
