From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt1-x82f.google.com (mail-qt1-x82f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D35B53CB35 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x82f.google.com with SMTP id e9-v6so10169725qtp.7 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:34:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l65Qm1Kg/PL2MM59l0/GUAR5N54kO447r5zsaZ2THZ0=; b=B9bVUNGUmeK0bDPVgHSGsxTZqZoNVJ9FUqPa4nwywrsGr2uYR8P/SBBu57tMe07JIp D19Z3ksQVq2c1BwM2Zo+Botroa/8BFDlfnQyE8usJhFMCjoHdpHMq1RJnd7v+eBC6iUw +AegNk3suMz5eGnJ8buleOUKOhOft3y247/pGXiQkqfmoZ6VuuZjqE2uEgiyTgUt3YWl lKzOMsazhdBQumpas8f3bSjckyOAXnhnA0zIEWhNhOIYYKuMDxlTjoYOeXw0PPmcG/2U /YvbexucobQ796rD4pUduWbMnaVChd0KZITTbX7vnChhQdvpEe4c90G+YSzGt7uDJalO e5Sw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l65Qm1Kg/PL2MM59l0/GUAR5N54kO447r5zsaZ2THZ0=; b=l4npNJyR0xyXrY9jxo8mSdxPp8vZG4SRWZgedIJHk+3/RHqLKpcvqUGEF80EeHvHdt Wye51woqVuf4iKib5E8bX648ykIyxN0xkp79X6gFt1TFqI8UvnljxSgL5m8fkjoU1RiZ AlMY3G8Yp7E5NIXKgbFBAhOuqbrhpS/KIek/4hA4wnUnG/Swz+ozAGwvN+BgsPQW1ftX 8voBT8WAJa8lqcjvkmA1x36ygl1SJPqHdEFjh/c7cdEFQt/5RYbDDXETC743FxVA2ein sdg5SvW1UG8DPjb3DhhMVcH5utk6fb+x0SmvlUptqQ1Ve3i65wymtDAvxBC5VBNrdKaT kXlw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohY+kGKUwrcHBJUijGbir3CIDS7xBu6jyDdctbAZZ0C7ODhp9o1 yvJwgJZeyl9CZSzqMTGaQ+0psNfcVaBQ3lgLvXc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61HWQuUVZofd5w0Xp03BAwMzwpzgwoLE6LZ0djDYaMYsMwMu25w/AaGUmenwY8WPqGNnsjADiOcUOQbx3SZ7vM= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:21db:: with SMTP id 27-v6mr68927qtz.171.1537814041023; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:34:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:33:49 -0700 Message-ID: To: Bruno George Moraes Cc: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] ECN usable with UDP paper X-BeenThere: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of explicit congestion notification's impact on the Internet List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:34:02 -0000 On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:18 AM Bruno George Moraes w= rote: > > https://csperkins.org/publications/2015/10/mcquistin2015ecn-udp.html > > Using measurements from the author=E2=80=99s homes, their workplace, and = cloud servers in each of the nine EC2 regions worldwide, we test reachabili= ty of 2500 servers from the public NTP server pool, using ECT(0) and not-EC= T marked UDP packets. We show that an average of 98.97% of the NTP servers = that are reachable using not-ECT marked packets are also reachable using EC= T(0) marked UDP packets, and that 98% of network hops pass ECT(0) marked pa= ckets without clearing the ECT bits. We compare reachability of the same ho= sts using ECN with TCP, finding that 82.0% of those reachable with TCP can = successfully negotiate and use ECN. Our findings suggest that ECN is broadl= y usable with UDP traffic, and that support for use of ECN with TCP has inc= reased. > _______________________________________________ > Ecn-sane mailing list > Ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane Yep. So my follow-on questions are: Would a NTP reflection attack be worse with ecn enabled? Should ntp servers accept ect marked packets in the first place? If so, what, if anything, should they do with a CE? --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619