Is it still possible to extend TCP?

Michio Honda, Yoshifumi Nishida, Costin Raiciu, Adam Greenhalgh, Mark Handley, Hideyuki Tokuda

研究成果: Conference contribution

129 引用 (Scopus)

抄録

We've known for a while that the Internet has ossified as a result of the race to optimize existing applications or enhance security. NATs, performance-enhancing-proxies,firewalls and traffic normalizers are only a few of the middleboxes that are deployed in the network and look beyond the IP header to do their job. IP itself can't be extended because "IP options are not an option". Is the same true for TCP? In this paper we develop a measurement methodology for evaluating middlebox behavior relating to TCP extensions and present the results of measurements conducted from multiple vantage points. The short answer is that we can still extend TCP, but extensions' design is very constrained as it needs to take into account prevalent middlebox behaviors. For instance, absolute sequence numbers cannot be embedded in options, as middleboxes can rewrite ISN and preserve undefined options. Sequence numbering also must be consistent for a TCP connection, because many middleboxes only allow through contiguous flows. We used these findings to analyze three proposed extensions to TCP. We find that MPTCP is likely to work correctly in the Internet or fallback to regular TCP. TcpCrypt seems ready to be deployed, however it is fragile if resegmentation does happen - -for instance with hardware offload. Finally, TCP extended options in its current form is not safe to deploy.

元の言語English
ホスト出版物のタイトルProceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC
ページ181-194
ページ数14
DOI
出版物ステータスPublished - 2011
イベント2011 ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC'11 - Berlin, Germany
継続期間: 2011 11 22011 11 4

Other

Other2011 ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC'11
Germany
Berlin
期間11/11/211/11/4

Fingerprint

Internet
Hardware

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Software
  • Computer Networks and Communications

これを引用

Honda, M., Nishida, Y., Raiciu, C., Greenhalgh, A., Handley, M., & Tokuda, H. (2011). Is it still possible to extend TCP?Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC (pp. 181-194) https://doi.org/10.1145/2068816.2068834

Is it still possible to extend TCP? / Honda, Michio; Nishida, Yoshifumi; Raiciu, Costin; Greenhalgh, Adam; Handley, Mark; Tokuda, Hideyuki.

Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC. 2011. p. 181-194.

研究成果: Conference contribution

Honda, M, Nishida, Y, Raiciu, C, Greenhalgh, A, Handley, M & Tokuda, H 2011, Is it still possible to extend TCP?Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC. pp. 181-194, 2011 ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC'11, Berlin, Germany, 11/11/2. https://doi.org/10.1145/2068816.2068834
Honda M, Nishida Y, Raiciu C, Greenhalgh A, Handley M, Tokuda H. Is it still possible to extend TCP? : Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC. 2011. p. 181-194 https://doi.org/10.1145/2068816.2068834
Honda, Michio ; Nishida, Yoshifumi ; Raiciu, Costin ; Greenhalgh, Adam ; Handley, Mark ; Tokuda, Hideyuki. / Is it still possible to extend TCP?. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC. 2011. pp. 181-194
@inproceedings{8282642dfdfc480ea51b94a3176111a6,
title = "Is it still possible to extend TCP?",
abstract = "We've known for a while that the Internet has ossified as a result of the race to optimize existing applications or enhance security. NATs, performance-enhancing-proxies,firewalls and traffic normalizers are only a few of the middleboxes that are deployed in the network and look beyond the IP header to do their job. IP itself can't be extended because {"}IP options are not an option{"}. Is the same true for TCP? In this paper we develop a measurement methodology for evaluating middlebox behavior relating to TCP extensions and present the results of measurements conducted from multiple vantage points. The short answer is that we can still extend TCP, but extensions' design is very constrained as it needs to take into account prevalent middlebox behaviors. For instance, absolute sequence numbers cannot be embedded in options, as middleboxes can rewrite ISN and preserve undefined options. Sequence numbering also must be consistent for a TCP connection, because many middleboxes only allow through contiguous flows. We used these findings to analyze three proposed extensions to TCP. We find that MPTCP is likely to work correctly in the Internet or fallback to regular TCP. TcpCrypt seems ready to be deployed, however it is fragile if resegmentation does happen - -for instance with hardware offload. Finally, TCP extended options in its current form is not safe to deploy.",
keywords = "measurements, middleboxes, protocol design, TCP",
author = "Michio Honda and Yoshifumi Nishida and Costin Raiciu and Adam Greenhalgh and Mark Handley and Hideyuki Tokuda",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1145/2068816.2068834",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781450310130",
pages = "181--194",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Is it still possible to extend TCP?

AU - Honda, Michio

AU - Nishida, Yoshifumi

AU - Raiciu, Costin

AU - Greenhalgh, Adam

AU - Handley, Mark

AU - Tokuda, Hideyuki

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - We've known for a while that the Internet has ossified as a result of the race to optimize existing applications or enhance security. NATs, performance-enhancing-proxies,firewalls and traffic normalizers are only a few of the middleboxes that are deployed in the network and look beyond the IP header to do their job. IP itself can't be extended because "IP options are not an option". Is the same true for TCP? In this paper we develop a measurement methodology for evaluating middlebox behavior relating to TCP extensions and present the results of measurements conducted from multiple vantage points. The short answer is that we can still extend TCP, but extensions' design is very constrained as it needs to take into account prevalent middlebox behaviors. For instance, absolute sequence numbers cannot be embedded in options, as middleboxes can rewrite ISN and preserve undefined options. Sequence numbering also must be consistent for a TCP connection, because many middleboxes only allow through contiguous flows. We used these findings to analyze three proposed extensions to TCP. We find that MPTCP is likely to work correctly in the Internet or fallback to regular TCP. TcpCrypt seems ready to be deployed, however it is fragile if resegmentation does happen - -for instance with hardware offload. Finally, TCP extended options in its current form is not safe to deploy.

AB - We've known for a while that the Internet has ossified as a result of the race to optimize existing applications or enhance security. NATs, performance-enhancing-proxies,firewalls and traffic normalizers are only a few of the middleboxes that are deployed in the network and look beyond the IP header to do their job. IP itself can't be extended because "IP options are not an option". Is the same true for TCP? In this paper we develop a measurement methodology for evaluating middlebox behavior relating to TCP extensions and present the results of measurements conducted from multiple vantage points. The short answer is that we can still extend TCP, but extensions' design is very constrained as it needs to take into account prevalent middlebox behaviors. For instance, absolute sequence numbers cannot be embedded in options, as middleboxes can rewrite ISN and preserve undefined options. Sequence numbering also must be consistent for a TCP connection, because many middleboxes only allow through contiguous flows. We used these findings to analyze three proposed extensions to TCP. We find that MPTCP is likely to work correctly in the Internet or fallback to regular TCP. TcpCrypt seems ready to be deployed, however it is fragile if resegmentation does happen - -for instance with hardware offload. Finally, TCP extended options in its current form is not safe to deploy.

KW - measurements

KW - middleboxes

KW - protocol design

KW - TCP

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82955186911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82955186911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/2068816.2068834

DO - 10.1145/2068816.2068834

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:82955186911

SN - 9781450310130

SP - 181

EP - 194

BT - Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC

ER -