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

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Thu, 30 April 2020 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A593A0947 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 06:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.82, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SEk1uHvuIROB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 06:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F2D33A09D4 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 06:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140F9282C58 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 06:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1588251957; bh=aoEB/qbxCuaXaR5fQkSgYqSonbINYB1+gVaHH7I92Yw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wnhRerEJsTWzIk9aDVDr1HzmWP5xmAsHwxazX8AEk7Snu64710X1DZsE7xGqCwFha DdalVr2EY0zw9wowYVDW835HSjvLtPoNPXPuWZljy0I8ID1+U8MT9mXc3Yd0EORG0b HrW39lG7GIIA8aY+0aYJEEDM51uT3359R8nu7j+Q=
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 06:05:57 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7PFMWAON553AYW6LV4W2XDLEVBNHHCITYZTQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608/621822010@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5-tuple routing and SPA (#3608)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eaacd353a17_72893f9543ecd96c252420"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/3JA7hjz9GHnYjZUVtwO0XQCep5w>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 13:06:08 -0000

> This brings up a related question for me about disable_active_migration. Given a server can decide not to give out any additional connection IDs, doesn't that give it a mechanism for disabling active migration?

IIRC, we had that conversation when deciding whether to add `disable_active_migration` in the first place.  The short version is that taking this approach prevents the client from rotating CIDs on the primary path; if we want the client to be able to rotate CIDs but not migrate, they need to be distinct signals.

@erickinnear, in a way you're correct that clients will have to deal with the fallout regardless of what the server says.  However, the actual use of `disable_active_migration` is likely to trigger a little more than just "don't do that" -- a client might PING more actively to prevent NAT rebindings, for example.  I think it's this hinting aspect that's actually more valuable, since as you note, clients need to be prepared for attempted migrations to fail even with servers that tacitly support them.

> Per-definition, server-preferred address is an address that is capable of receiving packets from any address.

I don't think this is necessarily true, though I agree that we're talking about smaller and smaller fractions of server space.

-- 
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-621822010