Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] If you want a Stateless Reset you need to send a much larger packet than before (#2770)

Marten Seemann <> Wed, 19 June 2019 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01B012034A for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.391
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 lpgPl5mH4yft for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B393E12006A for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:26:18 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1560907578; bh=mztXeyri1xghUPfVCq9x5zHmucHTjirkpm8kHB6zrFg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=16K/MLh6W8ez4el7FS9MwOJgFrYkK8t8Mw3RK81pT3ZBcmfZ94im3us5TTo92cgB8 t8ZRkJ3KK35UM242iV4dOQu+DofkdZ0+bEqENHbJwtrx63JPpTdHgli8amKLZlkA69 pISuS6ayORhf7XgZJpHO5L3xlfYsitFl84G1gdj8=
From: Marten Seemann <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2770/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] If you want a Stateless Reset you need to send a much larger packet than before (#2770)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d098f3a4e183_121a3f88eaacd96c255070"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 01:26:22 -0000

> But let's assume we just changed from an 18 byte client connection ID to a 4-byte connection ID (which is specifically allowed by the spec), then that new packet is indistinguishable from a stateless reset.

That’s technically correct, but I‘m having doubts if this is s realistic scenario in practice. Realistically, a client would only pay the price of having a 18 byte overhead on every packet if it absolutely has to - i.e. if it’s behind an architecture that performs connection ID based routing and requires that many bits to do so. If that’s the case, changing to a 4 byte connection ID is not a realistic option. 

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