Data on latency and loss-rates during congestion DDoS attacks

Sun Jan 26 11:07:33 UTC 2020

" he/she doubts that delays increase significantly under network congestion
since he/she thinks that the additional queuing is something mostly in
small routers such as home routers (and maybe like the routers used in our
emulation testbed) "

Wow, this is the first time I've found an academic challenging the increase
of delay in routers under network congestion.

The doubt is childish. It's like a question you'd expect to hear in a
"networking 101" class.

On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 4:28 AM Amir Herzberg <amir.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> Damian, thanks!
>
> That's actually roughly the range of losses we focused on; but it was
> based on my rough feeling for reasonable loss rates (as well as on
> experiments where we caused losses in emulated environments), and a
> reviewer - justifiably - asked if we can base our values on realistic
> values. So I would love to have real value, I'm sure some people have these
> measured (I'm actually quite sure I've seed such values, but the challenge
> is recalling where and finding it...).
>
> Also, latency values (under congestion) would be appreciated. Also here,
> we used a range of values, I think the highest was 1sec, since we believe
> that under congestion delays goes up considerably since many queues fill up
> [and again I seem to recall values around this range]. But here the
> reviewer even challenged us and said he/she doubts that delays increase
> significantly under network congestion since he/she thinks that the
> additional queuing is something mostly in small routers such as home
> routers (and maybe like the routers used in our emulation testbed). So I'll
> love to have some real data to know for sure.
>
> Apart from knowing these things for this specific paper, I should know
> them in a well-founded way anyway, as I'm doing rearch on and teaching
> net-sec (incl. quite a lot on DoS) :)
>
> --
> Amir
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:31 PM Damian Menscher <damian at google.com> wrote:
>
>> I suggest testing with a broad variety of values, as losses as low as 5%
>> can be annoying, but losses at 50% or more are not uncommon.
>>
>> Damian
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:41 AM Amir Herzberg <amir.lists at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear NANOG,
>>>
>>> One of my ongoing research works is about a transport protocol that
>>> ensures (critical) communication in spite of DDoS congestion attack (which
>>> cannot be circumvented), by (careful) use of Forward Error Correction. Yes,
>>> obviously, this has to be done and used carefully since the FEC clearly
>>> increases traffic rather than the typical congestion-control approach of
>>> reducing it, I'm well aware of it; but some applications are critical (and
>>> often low-bandwidth) so such tool is important.
>>>
>>> I am looking for data on loss rate and congestion of DDoS attacks to
>>> make sure we use right parameters. Any chance you have such data and can
>>> share?
>>>
>>> Many thanks!
>>> --
>>> Amir Herzberg
>>> Comcast chair of security innovation, University of Connecticut
>>> Foundations of cybersecurity
>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323243320_Introduction_to_Cyber-Security_Part_I_Applied_Cryptography_Lecture_notes_and_exercises>, part
>>> I (see also part II and presentations):
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323243320_Introduction_to_Cyber-Security_Part_I_Applied_Cryptography_Lecture_notes_and_exercises
>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/project/Lecture-notes-on-Introduction-to-Cyber-Security>
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200126/de5f0a54/attachment.html>