Flent-users discussion archives
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Cc: flent-users <flent-users@flent.org>
Subject: Re: [Flent-users] IRTT UDP-lite support
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 10:34:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2639B69C-8561-4014-A567-A5F22F52A7B3@heistp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw46X02K8t+_C2Xo00R9bCCzugNG0nHDGm+N==hgTSmUJQ@mail.gmail.com>

> On Mar 8, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> My principal desires for udp-lite support in both netperf and irtt is
> that it is a udp alternative that actually works, at least on linux
> and some forms of bsd, over ipv6, and so far as I can tell (without
> serious testing) ipv4, even through nat.
> UDP port space is especially constrained in light of the rise of QUIC
> and increasingly short NAT state machine timeouts. I've seen NAT's
> lose their udp tracking in well under 30 seconds (well below the rfc),
> and for a reason!
> all the udp ports are often used up on busy nat and now CGN translators.
> It is not because of it's additional support for a partial checksum
> that I favor trying to make UDP-lite more deployable.

Aha, ok! In that case I’ll put it on the list for first just supporting UDP-lite with a regular full checksum. It should be easy (said the sailor, unawares of the kraken). The partial checksum for measuring corruption can be down the road.

Regarding NAT, I appreciate the expertise here as I didn’t know running out of UDP port space was a common problem. Do you think that could cause some of your UDP loss to flent-london?

If a NAT implementation is not aware of UDP-lite, it will only differentiate it by proto number 136, meaning there could only be one UDP-lite conversation at a time. It looks like UDP-lite support made it in to nf_conntrack_proto_udp.c as of kernel 4.11, which means most consumer embedded routers won’t know about it, but then again, those devices are usually used by fewer users. If on the other hand a NAT does support UDP-lite, we get a fresh port space.

If only NAT never were, and Internet MTUs increased with the times...


Flent-users mailing list

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-03-09  9:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-08 19:25 Pete Heist
2019-03-08 20:31 ` Dave Taht
2019-03-08 21:10   ` Dave Taht
2019-03-09  9:34   ` Pete Heist [this message]
2019-03-12 13:17     ` Pete Heist

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information: https://lists.flent.org/postorius/lists/flent-users.flent.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2639B69C-8561-4014-A567-A5F22F52A7B3@heistp.net \
    --to=pete@heistp.net \
    --cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
    --cc=flent-users@flent.org \
    --subject='Re: [Flent-users] IRTT UDP-lite support' \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox