[quicwg/base-drafts] Transport Draft should opine about 5-tuple based load balancing (#3500)

Ryan Hamilton <notifications@github.com> Wed, 04 March 2020 20:38 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640C13A080C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 12:38:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KHBdpZFXMrJg for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 12:38:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-18.smtp.github.com (out-18.smtp.github.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08FAE3A0812 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 12:38:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-d31a065.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-d31a065.va3-iad.github.net []) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D6C6E0771 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 12:38:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1583354304; bh=1jtLPWaEv16q/FBNjMiCfBjziFk3/+VAJh+ChamIHf4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=V8/79W1B+jgk1OqoCSxNRFgpebxdBHjKj+mnAecfgw0y5UG5PC+34oM1jYN9wZlsb ML3Q33rhDtFEKj0XxftQdvG6omiO7TGRTp9kfx67DM5dwN5NaD+1OzWhOw1tIWym7q vvqimA9gux0038T48qYd/V7a2mSyztJvsjQbTiD0=
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 12:38:24 -0800
From: Ryan Hamilton <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3JW4EP6SXIFL53U254NPZMBEVBNHHCEUKFCI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3500@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Transport Draft should opine about 5-tuple based load balancing (#3500)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e6011c0b9759_78af3f95b8acd964137732"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: RyanTheOptimist
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/3jd_hzIKSO654VeYRzCNhdCCQy0>
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: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 20:38:27 -0000

The transport draft talks about QUIC being resilient to NAT rebindings. However, if a QUIC server is behind an L3 load balancer which simply routes based on 5-tuple, then connections to this server will (likely) not survive rebinding. I couldn't find any language which addressed whether such a deployment was "OK" or not. I think that since this load balance does not support NAT binding resilience, it is implicitly "bad" according to the draft, but others might disagree. In any case, I think there should be text to address this.

Note, if the server advertised a preferred_address which routed around the load balancer, and if clients were *required* to use this address, then that could obviously work. But preferred_address support is a SHOULD, not a MUST.

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