nanog mailing list archives

Re: UDP clamped on service provider links


From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:01:04 -0700

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com> wrote:



On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf () gmail com> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:45 PM, John Kristoff <jtk () cymru com> wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:42:46 +0530
Glen Kent <glen.kent () gmail com> wrote:


Is there a reason why this is often done so? Is this because UDP
is stateless and any script kiddie could launch a DOS attack with a
UDP stream?

State, some form of sender verification and that it and most other
commonly used protocols besides TCP do not generally react to implicit
congestion signals (drops usually).


​Hmmm.  The WebRTC ​stack has a pretty explicit form of getting and then
maintaining consent; it also rides on top of UDP (SRTP/UDP for media and
SCTP/DTLS/UDP for data channels).  Because both media and data channels go
from peer to peer, it has no preset group of server addresses to white
list
(the only way I can see to do that would be to force the use of TURN and
white list the TURN server, but that would be problematic for
performance).  How will you support it if the default is to throttle UDP?

Clue welcome,

Ted


We will install a middlebox to strip off the UDP and expose the SCTP
natively as the transport protocol !

Patent pending!


​Yeah, it's SCTP over DTLS over UDP, so stripping the UDP is going to give
you:  nothing.   This may be WAI for some networks, of course.​



RTCweb made a series of trade offs.  Encapsulating SCTP in UDP is one of
them... the idea at the time was the this is only WebRTC 1.0, so we'll do a
few silly things to ship it early.  As i am sure you know :)


​All of engineering is trade-off​s.

But I'm asking about a different one here:  media traffic often runs over
udp when RTP/SRTP is involved and with WebRTC some datachannel traffic will
as well.  John's work in university environment he cited was used fixed
limits for all protocols other than TCP, based on the idea that the others
either had no congestion control or limited consent.  Those issues
shouldn't hit WebRTC which has robust consent and some congestion control
(circuit breakers at the moment and more soon).  How do we balance that out?

regards,

Ted


Current thread: