Subject: [Spud] on NAT timers in UDP (Fwd: [Maprg] Is UDP a trash heap?)

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:14:47 +0200

Greetings, all,

For those of you not on [email-masked], here's an IMC paper on a laboratory experiment on captive middleboxes (from 2010): one datapoint on the need for TCP-like state management in PLUS.

Cheers,

Brian

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [Maprg] Is UDP a trash heap?
> Date: 24 May 2016 at 10:58:01 GMT+2
> To: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> 
> On 2016-05-24, at 10:50, Brian Trammell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> As noted over on the [email-masked] list, there are other questions about UDP vs TCP treatment that we need answers to as well: distribution of NAT timers on UDP NAT, prevalence and distribution of UDP rate limiting. (The second question is of course hard to answer with active measurement unless you're willing to run DoS attacks.)
> 
> There is some (now old) data on this in our IMC paper: http://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2010/papers/p260.pdf
> 
> NAT timers are shorter, and rate limiting more prevalent.
> 
> Lars