Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How many probed paths should a server remember? (#3489)

Kazuho Oku <> Mon, 02 March 2020 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB6123A0997 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 07:54:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Sp6jLghrhoy for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 07:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 133303A0A58 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 07:54:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E72BC6068C for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 07:53:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1583164438; bh=UijaqnJbkRFSX8vDBkA1FEUq4C+rBI+ndubsgftwtFc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=wf1ej6AiuA68HulrYASLcJJfg2cXNpE5A6u57H9B9Y/Z85QTCB/fQTgS4tc/Aid0r AqmO6akBcsEnwIFUg4c7wrOgutoVGarpnnBJDklnVhM3+Ui/HDF7wZhx4Uip5Dl2xa MYmiNnVqXgVkAi+e8vrxsS2JHD6gdcFPFzy3dUZs=
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 07:53:58 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3489/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How many probed paths should a server remember? (#3489)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e5d2c168f004_3e773ff35dacd95c777b3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:54:25 -0000

> Given QUIC v1 is chartered to support connection migration and not multipath, we could also say clients shouldn't probe more than one extra path at once.

I'm fine with having a hard-coded limitation, though if we are to set the maximum to one, then we need to decide whether or not migration due to SPA is counted. It would be simpler to include it, but the potential downside would be that probing using a different network interface would be forbidden until migration to the preferred address concludes.

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