[freenet-dev] Packet size proposal

[NextGen$]

* Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-03-10 13:57:28]:

> On Saturday 08 March 2008 14:30, Michael Rogers wrote:
> > Evan Daniel wrote:
> > > At least for the near term future, and probably longer, we need an
> > > answer other than TCP because of ugliness like Comcast's Sandvine
> > > hardware.  Forged TCP reset packets are non-trivial to deal with, but
> > > the equivalent problem doesn't even exist for UDP.
> > 
> > True, UDP is more robust than TCP against this particular attack, but 
> > that just means the next logical step in the P2P vs ISP arms race is for 
> > all the P2P apps to move to UDP, and then the ISPs will just start 
> > throttling UDP instead of forging RSTs. Ultimately if your ISP doesn't 
> > want to carry your traffic, they won't carry it.
> 
> Sure. But it will cost them. RSTs are trivial. The Golden Shield uses RSTs for 
> example, rather than remembering which streams it wants to kill. Because 
> statefully killing streams would cost many times more. 

Send any "hard" ICMP error and you're done killing it ;)

> Throttling UDP 
> likewise would cause other problems: it would slow down skype dramatically, 
> alienating a lot of users, so they'd need to put more hardware in to detect 
> skype...

Skype can work over TCP if UDP is blocked.

NextGen$