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

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608#issuecomment-629915539