Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5-tuple routing and SPA (#3608)

Martin Thomson <> Mon, 18 May 2020 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B473A0831 for <>; Sun, 17 May 2020 19:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.081
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.282, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uL6fXmp1upeG for <>; Sun, 17 May 2020 19:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 058143A082E for <>; Sun, 17 May 2020 19:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191E1A0841 for <>; Sun, 17 May 2020 19:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1589769854; bh=SCUvna8QYMQNGeAAmYT9nOvg/t2rHZ8ky7tlYt+rQZc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=l8dOn5Lxgha2GnBx8RpKsS8G4eBrbjFsN5Q5GS+vIxVfyctzKhK7uV/CLmsBprDFG CzYWCCB7C+Ji6qGQc9vckCApO/TSI7+2nh1f3uhLqzp4i88eYDMSl4gnljxFzMYWSM 4zFigH50SiG4zOMDY281wYTdSXrjLcqt0SHEQvZI=
Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 19:44:14 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5-tuple routing and SPA (#3608)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ec1f67e8faa_572f3fe58fccd9684366a3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 02:44:16 -0000

As this has sat here a while, I'll reiterate my proposal again: we defer the ability to signal "I support migration, but only on my preferred address" to an extension.

Which means that disable_active_migration applies to both the original address and SPA, so answer the question (sorry Ian, I missed that).

I realize that you could change the meaning of disable_active_migration to apply to the address the server uses in the handshake, but there are interesting corner cases and I don't think we need to concern ourselves with those.  For instance, if you connect over V4 and get disable_active_migration and server_preferred_address.  If that SPA includes a V6 address you can't use, along with the same V4 address, what then?  Does the server really support migration?

I know that the current situation is unappealing, and I think that disable_active_migration is not good for the protocol.  But it exists for very good reasons.  Trying to limit the scope is admirable, but as we haven't seen a concrete proposal, I think we need to move on.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: