[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45EDD1DC.2010200@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:41:00 -0800
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To: Howard Chu <hyc@...as.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TCP 2MSL on loopback
>> With transparant bridging, nobody knows how long the datagram may be
>> out there. Admittedly, the chances of a datagram living for a full
>> two minutes these days is probably nil, but just being in the same IP
>> subnet doesn't really mean anything when it comes to physical locality.
>
>
> Bridging isn't necessarily a problem though. The 2MSL timeout is
> designed to prevent problems from delayed packets that got sent through
> multiple paths. In a bridging setup you don't allow multiple paths,
> that's what STP is designed to prevent. If you want to configure a
> network that allows multiple paths, you need to use a router, not a bridge.
Well, there is trunking at the data link layer, and in theory there
could be an active-standby where the standby took a somewhat different path.
The timeout is also to cover datagrams which just got "stuck" somewhere
too (IIRC) and may not necessarily require a multiple path situation.
>
>> SPECweb benchmarking has had to deal with the issue of attempted
>> TIME_WAIT reuse going back to 1997. It deals with it by not relying
>> on the client's configured local/anonymous/ephemeral port number range
>> and instead making explicit bind() calls in the (more or less) entire
>> unpriv port range (actually it may just be from 5000 to 65535 but still)
>
>
> That still doesn't solve the problem, it only ~doubles the available
> port range. That means it takes 0.6 seconds to trigger the problem
> instead of only 0.3 seconds...
True. Thankfully, the web learned to use persistent connections so
later versions of SPECweb benchmarking make use of persistent connections.
> In an environment where connections are opened and closed very quickly
> with only a small amount of data carried per connection, it might make
> sense to remember the last sequence number used on a port and use that
> as the floor of the next randomly generated ISN. Monotonically
> increasing sequence numbers aren't a security risk if there's still a
> randomly determined gap from one connection to the next. But I don't
> think it's necessary to consider this at the moment.
I thought that all the "security types" started squawking if the ISN
wasn't completely random?
I've not tried this, but if a client does want to cycle through
thousands of connections per second, and if it is the one to initiate
connection close, would it be sufficient to only use something like:
socket()
bind()
loop:
connect()
request()
response()
shudtown(SHUT_RDWR)
goto loop
ie not call close on the FD so there is still a direct link to the
connection in TIME_WAIT so one could in theory initiate a new connection
from TIME_WAIT? Then in theory the randomness could be _almost_ the
entire sequence space, less the previous connection's window (IIRC).
rick jones
rick jones
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists