Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Incorporating local-vs-external network vantage points #9

Open
ckreibich opened this issue Nov 22, 2018 · 2 comments
Open

Incorporating local-vs-external network vantage points #9

ckreibich opened this issue Nov 22, 2018 · 2 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@ckreibich
Copy link
Member

A given network flow's 5-tuple will differ depending on whether it's perceived internally, externally, before or after a NAT, etc. Can the Community ID accommodate this?

The short answer is no, since there's an assumption that the ID is based on the observed flow tuple, so presence of a NAT will make a semantically identical flow look like two different ones. However, this relates to #4 in that the ID could be based on other flow properties such as QUIC's connection ID.

This was a talk discussion question at SuriCon 2018.

@ckreibich ckreibich added the question Further information is requested label Nov 22, 2018
@regit
Copy link

regit commented Nov 22, 2018

A possibility could be to generate a hash like (src_hash):(dst_hash). But the server side will not be random at all.

@ckreibich
Copy link
Member Author

Yep! Keeping the endpoints separate also came up in #10. I'm not sure it adds much, though.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants