Subject: [homenet] udp-lite support?

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 12:07:47 -0800

I am growing concerned by the widespread adoption of udp as a baseline
transport for so many protocols (webrtc, bittorrent maelstrom, etc.)
Certainly a couple traceroutes alone could blow up my udp nat table on
a busy router with open udp ports as can something as simple as trying
to do reverse lookups on everything in a /64 - I long ago had to start
closing udp ports on the firewall in under 30 seconds - (dns over ipv6
fixes this thoroughly, thank ghu), but having thoroughly blown up my
world just now with mosh-multipath...

I see udplite support is mandated by some homenet rfc or another.

udp-lite, unlike sctp, it is simple enough to work everywhere, but a
lot of its original use case (unencrypted rtp) is gone.

What, if anything is it actually used for today? Are there any test
suites or large scale tests/testers that have gone and looked at its
actual routability over the ipv4 and ipv6 Internet?

anyway, udplite seemed like a good fit for a userspace vpn or
something like mosh, so (since I was unable to find any comprehensive
udplite test suites)  I went and implemented that as a test for fun...

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/LDNmr8PWkFg

and given how easy it is to hack in will probably try to add it to
netperf-wrapper. Over the holidays. Maybe.

-- 
Dave Täht

http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talk

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:20:48 +0100

> I see udplite support is mandated by some homenet rfc or another.

Hi Dave,

I could have missed it, but I don't recall UDP-Lite coming up before...
Which Homenet document are you referring to?

> What, if anything is it actually used for today?

I am not aware any significant deployment.

- Mark

> Are there any test
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>

---

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:43:59 -0800

> Which Homenet document are you referring to?

Sorry, the rfcs I was mentally referring to were not homenet:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6092

and:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6936#section-2.2

> I am not aware any significant deployment.

Well, I just tested it a little bit on v6 (with full checksum coverage). Worked.
ENOTIME to pursue it further.

CAPWAP was called out in the latter RFC above as a use case.

-- 
Dave Täht

thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks