2021 17th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM) 2021
DOI: 10.23919/cnsm52442.2021.9615534
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing the Threats Targeting Low Latency Traffic: the Case of L4S

Abstract: New services are designed for the future of Internet, and some of them will require the network to provide low latency traffic. Many optimizations targeting latency reduction have been proposed. Among them, re-architecting congestion control and active queue management (AQM) has been particularly studied. L4S [1,2,3] (Low Latency, Low Loss and Scalable Throughput) is a new network architecture that aims at allowing coexistence between low latency traffic and classic traffic within a single node, involving a du… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1
1

Relationship

2
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite the fact that the INT technology can introduce overheads in the monitoring framework, we can conclude that our framework is able to provide the metrics values that are similar to those presented in [3], [6] and conform to the expected behaviour of L4S switches.…”
Section: Assessment Of the L4s Behaviourmentioning
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Despite the fact that the INT technology can introduce overheads in the monitoring framework, we can conclude that our framework is able to provide the metrics values that are similar to those presented in [3], [6] and conform to the expected behaviour of L4S switches.…”
Section: Assessment Of the L4s Behaviourmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…While some LL and CL traffic coexistence issues such as throughput sharing, are addressed in L4S specifications, deploying L4S still implies assurance and security challenges that are calling for a monitoring framework. For instance, three categories of threats to make LL applications unusable have been identified in [3] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…a 5 Mo file for 10 Mbps and a 25 Mo file for 50 Mbps). To be able to transmit files above 1 Mo, we tuned two pre-processor variables 7 , thus creating a larger buffer to be able to randomly generate larger files. Figure 3 depicts the median, first and last quartile of the flow occupancy, standing for the throughput reachable by picoquic against the router throughput limitation.…”
Section: Undesirable Traffic Injector Performance and Limitsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper, we identify some relevant attacks a malicious user can implement against L4S and present their impacts, with different network conditions. More specifically, the contributions of the paper, as compared to the previous one presented in [7] are:…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, we prove that application-layer protocols such as QUIC can easily be hacked in order to exploit the over sensitivity of those new services to network variations. By implementing undesirable flows in a testbed and evaluating how they impact the delivery of low-latency flows, we demonstrate their reality and the need of research in the detection of this new kind of threats [4,5].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%