Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] GREASE the packet type octet (#311)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

@ekr I am afraid that the approach might not work well with a deployment that uses either connection ID or 5-tuple for load balancing, depending on the type of a packet.

In the past, we have discussed of deployments that would use some bits of a connection ID to route a packet to the correct server sitting behind a load balancer (or to the correct POP within an anycast deployment). Note that such a load balancer will typically not maintain any state of a QUIC connection.

OTOH, I also anticipate that even in a deployment that does connection ID-based load balancing, you might want to route packets to backend servers based on the 5-tuple during the handshake. This is for avoiding attacks targeting a specific server behind a load balancer. Note that processing of handshake packets could be much more computationally intensive due to public-key operations when compared to other types of packets.

The issue with the proposed approach is that it is impossible for a stateless load balancer to determine the correct type of the packet, since whether `K=0` or `K=K_static` should be used depends on the state of the connection. Therefore, with the proposed approach, it becomes impossible to change how the packet is load balanced depending on the type of a packet.

Am I missing something?

-- 
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/311#issuecomment-306691925