On 3/12/2015 12:32 AM, Olivier Bonaventure wrote: > Gregory, >>> >>> Although I can't disagree with your assessment of the direct discussion >>> on protecting TCP headers, the conclusion below seems to ignore the >>> discussion on "Forcing the restart of a TCPINC connection". >>> >>> I wonder how people think their solution will magically protect against >>> forced restarts if the TCP header isn't included. >> >> I agree. >> >> I don't think "don't protect the headers" is an accurate description >> of Honolulu if it also leaves the system exposed to resets, as there >> clearly was a fair amount of concern expressed about spurious resets. >> > > IMO, the best approach to deal with suprious resets, caused by > middleboxes, attackers or whatever, is to use the same approach as in > Multipath TCP by considering a TCPINC connection to be composed of > several subflows.
TCPINC isn't limited to Multipath TCP, thus that approach is inappropriate. Joe _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
