From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Xin Long Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 17:49:45 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/15] sctp: Implement RFC6951: UDP Encapsulation of SCTP Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michael Tuexen Cc: network dev , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner , Neil Horman , Tom Herbert , davem On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:40 AM Michael Tuexen wrote: > > > On 29. Sep 2020, at 15:48, Xin Long wrote: > > > > Description From the RFC: > > > > The Main Reasons: > > > > o To allow SCTP traffic to pass through legacy NATs, which do not > > provide native SCTP support as specified in [BEHAVE] and > > [NATSUPP]. > > > > o To allow SCTP to be implemented on hosts that do not provide > > direct access to the IP layer. In particular, applications can > > use their own SCTP implementation if the operating system does not > > provide one. > > > > Implementation Notes: > > > > UDP-encapsulated SCTP is normally communicated between SCTP stacks > > using the IANA-assigned UDP port number 9899 (sctp-tunneling) on both > > ends. There are circumstances where other ports may be used on > > either end, and it might be required to use ports other than the > > registered port. > > > > Each SCTP stack uses a single local UDP encapsulation port number as > > the destination port for all its incoming SCTP packets, this greatly > > simplifies implementation design. > > > > An SCTP implementation supporting UDP encapsulation MUST maintain a > > remote UDP encapsulation port number per destination address for each > > SCTP association. Again, because the remote stack may be using ports > > other than the well-known port, each port may be different from each > > stack. However, because of remapping of ports by NATs, the remote > > ports associated with different remote IP addresses may not be > > identical, even if they are associated with the same stack. > > > > Because the well-known port might not be used, implementations need > > to allow other port numbers to be specified as a local or remote UDP > > encapsulation port number through APIs. > Hi Xin Long, > > I really appreciate that UDP encapsulation gets implemented in Linux. > > The FreeBSD implementation initially had a bug due to missing text in > RFC6951. Please make sure the implementation also follows > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps-cons-03.html Hi, Michael Thanks for sharing this doc. 3. Handling of Out of the Blue Packets: This patchset can handle it well. 4. Handling of SCTP Packets Containing an INIT Chunk Matching an Existing Associations: These cases responding with ABORT, I will need to add. > > The plan is to revise RFC6951 and let RFC6951bis include the contents of > the above Internet Draft. But this most likely will happen after the > NAT document is ready and RFC4960bis finished... understand. > > If you want to do some interop testing, a web server supporting SCTP/UDP > is running at interop.fh-muenster.de. You can find a client (phttpget) at > https://github.com/NEAT-project/HTTPOverSCTP. got it. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F67C4727C for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 17:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0EC20848 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 17:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="C62nYQFp" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728422AbgI2Rto (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:49:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39672 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728198AbgI2Rtm (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:49:42 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x341.google.com (mail-wm1-x341.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::341]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D340C061755; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x341.google.com with SMTP id e17so5503065wme.0; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:49:42 -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; bh=ceR6IUEQV0hzCj0eJ/QgTQZ9V0xrxAWWeSh8GIv+wXA=; b=C62nYQFpvHQ/bEUzUOTXwQnppPlJxBikUOwf0TlUGniK3QhrMyvGkpqdXG69oJPrLl FExtHhc20sJUBrhWn//yQf+kkcCH9dZoEXilj8YvEjhuNXF+KstlT+2oshTyG0xaPb04 tITlCBXzZz8JLgISMvgU2O2LkQP5Lw/4f6JL2zcMTM/RktM8aglhF2hKjECrxn2zaZ9e n4RB1ua4Z6423bm2iJ/VBqrsukTO8buxapBUlNgNqgFKbwtveTCmK3ROFogjfy4Bm8TT 5Phb42Y4o9R/61PWuESn0TbkPIiAkihdRi8ZBCtgNAkdk/GxaVhQAT8BM9wC+Zffz3Pg gyvg== 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; bh=ceR6IUEQV0hzCj0eJ/QgTQZ9V0xrxAWWeSh8GIv+wXA=; b=AvytfXayRxRsQpj9ye0G+bCZUmeE+5L6ACU8v0/ii8L8lYakgYI1iGCK2WLchD17VP YevNTZzFcXDUNLzK6m5zQ2uJENfz3/qcqykd/ZGk7l0+PoseL7jY72IOm4PL6GzsCt6b mx/ULyeduTZ5NSlBjZcjYHIe1itzrJIiLYnzt92Yt1UNW/el6K7s55TsEVguZg0rLGPi li6/gYTlIr7AMmpPDNByVtpLoGaEpPAgbDXNdXf3U1vESqao+7wM6ruAlvT0Jxd4qQq+ NNzuO1hj44zxchTu+2mG3l+juXV6DKl4rJo3IIYO+7yovjsSbIzNQkcUPXaxOZsHZHhA TlOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530UhaioO/FjPberAXFnaEWi3Sxa6LYu5RWqOq+OQS9B47De8LvX f/cxKannXC6ccjVh3V872K/oHv9eP/ZDNYOiki5ePz+FaNE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTi4l7VkpdNJ0CyyiD5exbQZNbvlpRl9Xd+8rAdXtMNI/KaIrHA9yCcQ3hMeDicq2au8jtSCwQvFEBbPPrJQQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:283:: with SMTP id 3mr5955239wmk.110.1601401780882; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:49:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Xin Long Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 02:04:51 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/15] sctp: Implement RFC6951: UDP Encapsulation of SCTP To: Michael Tuexen Cc: network dev , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner , Neil Horman , Tom Herbert , davem Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20200929180451.Z1ZiiQO2eJi_gxd9IVb8M88M-ayt_ZH2uZkq73ABY4c@z> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:40 AM Michael Tuexen wrote: > > > On 29. Sep 2020, at 15:48, Xin Long wrote: > > > > Description From the RFC: > > > > The Main Reasons: > > > > o To allow SCTP traffic to pass through legacy NATs, which do not > > provide native SCTP support as specified in [BEHAVE] and > > [NATSUPP]. > > > > o To allow SCTP to be implemented on hosts that do not provide > > direct access to the IP layer. In particular, applications can > > use their own SCTP implementation if the operating system does not > > provide one. > > > > Implementation Notes: > > > > UDP-encapsulated SCTP is normally communicated between SCTP stacks > > using the IANA-assigned UDP port number 9899 (sctp-tunneling) on both > > ends. There are circumstances where other ports may be used on > > either end, and it might be required to use ports other than the > > registered port. > > > > Each SCTP stack uses a single local UDP encapsulation port number as > > the destination port for all its incoming SCTP packets, this greatly > > simplifies implementation design. > > > > An SCTP implementation supporting UDP encapsulation MUST maintain a > > remote UDP encapsulation port number per destination address for each > > SCTP association. Again, because the remote stack may be using ports > > other than the well-known port, each port may be different from each > > stack. However, because of remapping of ports by NATs, the remote > > ports associated with different remote IP addresses may not be > > identical, even if they are associated with the same stack. > > > > Because the well-known port might not be used, implementations need > > to allow other port numbers to be specified as a local or remote UDP > > encapsulation port number through APIs. > Hi Xin Long, > > I really appreciate that UDP encapsulation gets implemented in Linux. > > The FreeBSD implementation initially had a bug due to missing text in > RFC6951. Please make sure the implementation also follows > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps-cons-03.html Hi, Michael Thanks for sharing this doc. 3. Handling of Out of the Blue Packets: This patchset can handle it well. 4. Handling of SCTP Packets Containing an INIT Chunk Matching an Existing Associations: These cases responding with ABORT, I will need to add. > > The plan is to revise RFC6951 and let RFC6951bis include the contents of > the above Internet Draft. But this most likely will happen after the > NAT document is ready and RFC4960bis finished... understand. > > If you want to do some interop testing, a web server supporting SCTP/UDP > is running at interop.fh-muenster.de. You can find a client (phttpget) at > https://github.com/NEAT-project/HTTPOverSCTP. got it.