" 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 challenging the increase of delay in routers under network congestion. The doubt is childish. It's like a question you'd expect to hear in a "networking 101" class. On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 4:28 AM Amir Herzberg <amir.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. So I would love to have real value, I'm sure some people have these > measured (I'm actually quite sure I've seed such values, but the challenge > is recalling where and finding it...). > > Also, latency values (under congestion) would be appreciated. Also here, > we used a range of values, I think the highest was 1sec, since we believe > that under congestion delays goes up considerably since many queues fill up > [and again I seem to recall values around this range]. But here the > reviewer even challenged us and said 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). So I'll > love to have some real data to know for sure. > > Apart from knowing these things for this specific paper, I should know > them in a well-founded way anyway, as I'm doing rearch on and teaching > net-sec (incl. quite a lot on DoS) :) > > -- > Amir > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:31 PM Damian Menscher <dam...@google.com> wrote: > >> 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 <amir.li...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 clearly >>> increases traffic rather than the typical congestion-control approach of >>> reducing it, I'm well aware of it; but some applications are critical (and >>> often low-bandwidth) so such tool is important. >>> >>> I am looking for data on loss rate and congestion of DDoS attacks to >>> make sure we use right parameters. Any chance you have such data and can >>> share? >>> >>> Many thanks! >>> -- >>> Amir Herzberg >>> Comcast chair of security innovation, University of Connecticut >>> Foundations of cybersecurity >>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323243320_Introduction_to_Cyber-Security_Part_I_Applied_Cryptography_Lecture_notes_and_exercises>, >>> part >>> I (see also part II and presentations): >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323243320_Introduction_to_Cyber-Security_Part_I_Applied_Cryptography_Lecture_notes_and_exercises >>> <https://www.researchgate.net/project/Lecture-notes-on-Introduction-to-Cyber-Security> >>> >>> >>> -- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale