archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Willy Tarreau' <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Cc: David Miller <>,
	Jakub Kicinski <>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <>,
	Amit Klein <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: use prandom_u32() for ID generation
Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 10:41:18 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

From: Willy Tarreau
> Sent: 29 May 2021 12:08
> This is a complement to commit aa6dd211e4b1 ("inet: use bigger hash
> table for IP ID generation"), but focusing on some specific aspects
> of IPv6.
> Contary to IPv4, IPv6 only uses packet IDs with fragments, and with a
> minimum MTU of 1280, it's much less easy to force a remote peer to
> produce many fragments to explore its ID sequence. In addition packet
> IDs are 32-bit in IPv6, which further complicates their analysis. On
> the other hand, it is often easier to choose among plenty of possible
> source addresses and partially work around the bigger hash table the
> commit above permits, which leaves IPv6 partially exposed to some
> possibilities of remote analysis at the risk of weakening some
> protocols like DNS if some IDs can be predicted with a good enough
> probability.
> Given the wide range of permitted IDs, the risk of collision is extremely
> low so there's no need to rely on the positive increment algorithm that
> is shared with the IPv4 code via ip_idents_reserve(). We have a fast
> PRNG, so let's simply call prandom_u32() and be done with it.
> Performance measurements at 10 Gbps couldn't show any difference with
> the previous code, even when using a single core, because due to the
> large fragments, we're limited to only ~930 kpps at 10 Gbps and the cost
> of the random generation is completely offset by other operations and by
> the network transfer time. In addition, this change removes the need to
> update a shared entry in the idents table so it may even end up being
> slightly faster on large scale systems where this matters.
> The risk of at least one collision here is about 1/80 million among
> 10 IDs, 1/850k among 100 IDs, and still only 1/8.5k among 1000 IDs,
> which remains very low compared to IPv4 where all IDs are reused
> every 4 to 80ms on a 10 Gbps flow depending on packet sizes.

The problem is that, on average, 1 in 2^32 packets will use
the same id as the previous one.
If a fragment of such a pair gets lost horrid things are
likely to happen.
Note that this is different from an ID being reused after a
count of packets or after a time delay.

So you still need something to ensure IDs aren't reused immediately.


Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-31 10:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-29 11:07 Willy Tarreau
2021-05-31 10:41 ` David Laight [this message]
2021-05-31 11:19   ` Willy Tarreau
2021-05-31 19:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-06-01  5:20 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='RE: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: use prandom_u32() for ID generation' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).