On 7/28/2014 8:57 AM, David Mazieres wrote:
marcelo bagnulo braun <marc...@it.uc3m.es> writes:
Hi,
As we discussed in the meeting, we should try to make some design
decisions for TCPINC.
One of them is whether to protect or not the TCP header.
I would like to start the discussion on this topic. Arguments on one way
or the other?
Can we rephrase the question slightly and ask: "Which TCP header fields
are worth protecting?" Obviously one way forward is to protect nothing
in the headers. But I don't think anyone is advocating protecting the
whole header. (After all, the charter talks about NAT traversal.)
First, the TCP header includes the IP pseudoheader, so parts of that
can/should be protected.
Traversing a simple NAT can be supported if we ignore only the client
side IP address and TCP port (i.e., the side doing the active open).
IMO, the rest of the header ought to be protected by default.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
Tcpinc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
