Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

Hi Michael, >> [Karen ] TCP maps the received soft destination unreachable ICMPs to >> ENETUNREACH or EHOSTUNREACH pending errors on socket. >OK. FreeBSD provides EHOSTUNREACH instead of ETIMEDOUT for TCP. >It doesn't support ENETUNREACH. I don't think we do this in SCTP... > [Karen ] Yes. We do

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 7/16/2015 1:56 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote: >> > So, IMO, this is a great example of why studying these APIs as >> > abstractions is important and would have prevented this (IMO) oversight. > > Can you say specifically, what has been missed? > > My understanding is that SCTP and TCP are similar

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 7/16/2015 3:26 AM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote: > I think that one could say that RFC4960 Appendix C prescriptions for how > to handle soft icmps could relate to that this can make the assocs enter > dormant state fast and that dormant state implementation > need to relate to this fac

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 7/16/2015 2:40 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote: >> [Karen ] We provide information about received destination unreachable >> > ICMPs to users via socket api. >> > The same we do for (connected) UDP. >> > >> > This we could also do for SCTP, but as said we don't do it (yet). > > OK. FreeBSD does this

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 7/16/2015 12:01 AM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote: > HI Joe, > > I generally agree with your comments, but the situations is not > necessarily as bad as you say. > Please see below. ... >> Agreed, however the other ways that SCTP doesn't pass validated ICMPs to >> the user seems like a

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

Nielsen >> Cc: Joe Touch; Pal Martinsen (palmarti); taps@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP >> >>> On 16 Jul 2015, at 12:26, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen >> wrote: >>> >>> HI Michael, >>>>> >>>>&

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

HI Michael, >-Original Message- >From: Michael Tuexen [mailto:michael.tue...@lurchi.franken.de] >Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 12:45 PM >To: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen >Cc: Joe Touch; Pal Martinsen (palmarti); taps@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and I

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

> On 16 Jul 2015, at 12:26, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen > wrote: > > HI Michael, >>> >>> [Karen ] This might (the MAY) results in hard trouble if the >>> association is closed due to entering of dormant state. >>> That's why we believe that this MAY reaction should be coupled with >>> robust

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

HI Michael, >> >> [Karen ] This might (the MAY) results in hard trouble if the >> association is closed due to entering of dormant state. >> That's why we believe that this MAY reaction should be coupled with >> robust dormant state handling. >I think we have to distinguish two things here: > [Kar

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

> On 16 Jul 2015, at 11:09, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen > wrote: > > HI Michael, > Agreed, however the other ways that SCTP doesn't pass validated ICMPs to the user seems like a mistake to me. >>> [Karen ] I agree and we have for our SW recently discussed as to >>> whether we

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

HI Michael, >>> Agreed, however the other ways that SCTP doesn't pass validated ICMPs >>> to the user seems like a mistake to me. >>> >> [Karen ] I agree and we have for our SW recently discussed as to >> whether we should implement such notification following the UDP and >> TCP semantics. But at

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

> On 15 Jul 2015, at 20:23, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > On 7/15/2015 4:16 AM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote: > ... > Any pitfalls with ICMP when doing SCTP? In many ways, SCTP subsumes similar requirements as TCP, but that's probably buried in the SCTP docs. >>> It is. Se

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

> From: Taps [mailto:taps-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch >> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:24 PM >> To: Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen; Michael Tuexen >> Cc: Pal Martinsen (palmarti); taps@ietf.org; to...@isi.edu >> Subject: Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP >

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

sabeth Egede Nielsen; Michael Tuexen >Cc: Pal Martinsen (palmarti); taps@ietf.org; to...@isi.edu >Subject: Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP > > > >On 7/15/2015 4:16 AM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote: >... >>>>> Any pitfalls with ICMP when doing SCT

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 7/15/2015 4:16 AM, Karen Elisabeth Egede Nielsen wrote: ... Any pitfalls with ICMP when doing SCTP? >>> >>> In many ways, SCTP subsumes similar requirements as TCP, but that's >>> probably buried in the SCTP docs. >> It is. See >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4960#appendix-C >> > > [Ka

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

>-Original Message- >From: Taps [mailto:taps-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Tuexen >Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:20 PM >To: Joe Touch >Cc: Pal Martinsen (palmarti); taps@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP > >> On 04 Jun 2015,

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 6/5/2015 12:25 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: > >> On 04 Jun 2015, at 22:56, Joe Touch > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/4/2015 12:51 PM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: >>> On 04 Jun 2015, at 21:17, Joe Touch >>> > wrote: On

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 04 Jun 2015, at 22:56, Joe Touch mailto:to...@isi.edu>> wrote: On 6/4/2015 12:51 PM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: On 04 Jun 2015, at 21:17, Joe Touch mailto:to...@isi.edu>> wrote: On 6/4/2015 12:08 PM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: ... UDP passes all ICMP messages to the app. If the

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

> On 04 Jun 2015, at 21:17, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > On 6/4/2015 12:08 PM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: > ... >>> UDP passes all ICMP messages to the app. If the app doesn't listen for >>> it, that’s the app's decision. >>> >> Then there is a lot UDP application developers out there that do

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 6/4/2015 12:51 PM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: > >> On 04 Jun 2015, at 21:17, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/4/2015 12:08 PM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: >> ... UDP passes all ICMP messages to the app. If the app doesn't listen for it, that’s the app's decision. >>>

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

> On 04 Jun 2015, at 21:17, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > On 6/4/2015 12:08 PM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: > ... >>> UDP passes all ICMP messages to the app. If the app doesn't listen for >>> it, that’s the app's decision. >>> >> Then there is a lot UDP application developers out there that d

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

> On 04 Jun 2015, at 20:27, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > On 6/4/2015 11:15 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: >> >>> On 04 Jun 2015, at 17:43, Joe Touch >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/4/2015 3:48 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: >>> ... Does it make sense for th

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 6/4/2015 12:08 PM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: ... >> UDP passes all ICMP messages to the app. If the app doesn't listen for >> it, that’s the app's decision. >> > Then there is a lot UDP application developers out there that does not care. > > Ill guess what I am asking if we should mak

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

> On 04 Jun 2015, at 20:27, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > On 6/4/2015 11:15 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: >> >>> On 04 Jun 2015, at 17:43, Joe Touch >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/4/2015 3:48 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: >>> ... Does it make sense for t

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 6/4/2015 11:15 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: > >> On 04 Jun 2015, at 17:43, Joe Touch > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/4/2015 3:48 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: >> ... >>> Does it make sense for the TAPS transports draft to add ICMP? >> >> ICMP is not a transport

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 04 Jun 2015, at 17:43, Joe Touch mailto:to...@isi.edu>> wrote: On 6/4/2015 3:48 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: ... Does it make sense for the TAPS transports draft to add ICMP? ICMP is not a transport protocol. Sure. And I agree. But it has the potential to influence how the various

Re: [Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

On 6/4/2015 3:48 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote: ... > Does it make sense for the TAPS transports draft to add ICMP? ICMP is not a transport protocol. The ways in which transport protocols either terminate or pass-through ICMP messages is part of the transport protocol abstract API. E.g.,

[Taps] TAPS Transports and ICMP

Hi, I was wondering… Today app developers actively need to listen for ICMP messages and do smart things (tm) if they receive them. ICMP also offers a nice set of tools to do a few neat tricks. Application developers rarely bothers to care about that. Does it make sense for the TAPS transports