IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Spin per peer (#1982)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Thu, 08 November 2018 11:43 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 0CB69129AB8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 03:43:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 n6tILfmz-AYE for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 03:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 665D8128CB7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 03:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 03:43:53 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1541677433; bh=qaCc9K3geDGGgYMAywdJ1hpEdyaVwLTVEPztZMJ+xTY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=qxEQE0ZO/3t4NeYxITDVzwBQHT1DAVxTipDi2xugyCX6jA2naMkZwY0+WWotkep+j OO3WU7DbF2duy/pA9vHrDmWbJBTPO6+BrxnRX/XlYPbOmBCOvxxm985PsSe0IAjnL4 1zhYH2T4xmIDbi3DQSKeIfDpNVeNEWv+zsqhuAzk=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab6bfe3ba7317ac8da99ec1606e69b30b674c396f892cf0000000117fbe37992a169ce169265bd@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1982/review/172917791@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1982@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1982@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Spin per peer (#1982)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5be4217966d78_4a53ff26fcd45b410937e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/3vNnB7oKxWTUFt6Xur6vPm1GSqw>
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, 08 Nov 2018 11:43:56 -0000

mikkelfj commented on this pull request.



>  
-When the spin bit is disabled, endpoints SHOULD set the spin bit value to zero,
+The selection process SHOULD be designed such that
+on average the spin bit is disabled for at least 1/8th of the connections, or
+1/8th of the paths when doing migrations. The random choice SHOULD be dependent
+on the address of the peer, so that the spin bit is consistently enables or
+disabled for repeated connections to the same address.
+

That won't work well in server p2p where many connections go through the same 5-tuple because either all or no traffic will get spins. It will also will not work well when a cluster of servers target the same IP using the same PRNG /hash algorithm. You need to depend on the source address as well.

I think 1/8th of CIDs would be better.

-- 
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/pull/1982#pullrequestreview-172917791

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email