Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] VN packets may be dropped more often when the QUIC bit is 0 (#2400)

MikkelFJ <> Fri, 08 February 2019 07:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F138130F3B for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:22:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.001 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 FItTIGGvH93E for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:22:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6554D130F3A for <>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 23:22:45 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:22:44 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1549610564; bh=niyoy+Kqw1UyAUMyOBnp7Fg/79BtECJVXjh5V3ujwZE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=sVGosYhy7hung9cDr66VptquPSqFNe/ze5nVgje9irVGOeIkqwUgF/4qCVrbki4ID iLIEkCGcbp20gWoao7QVCICzb7LkayS3/2cTep/tlYDRv5DcfynCBnMDE2COU58vZ7 smENaOqufYx0CVRryTAR85hyTQfrvCPOooSwRAm0=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2400/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] VN packets may be dropped more often when the QUIC bit is 0 (#2400)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c5d2e443176d_7acb3fb9c32d45bc499d"; 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
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: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 07:22:48 -0000

I’m in favor of always setting the bit, and if not, symmetric header protection.

There are significant symmetric use cases, including NAT-punching p2p.

Making it 1 permanently lets QUIC co-exist, eg on a single client 443 port, and it avoids a lot of potential problems over a bit that is not needed.

Fra: Kazuho Oku <>
Sendt: fredag, februar 8, 2019 7:14 AM
Til: quicwg/base-drafts
Cc: MikkelFJ; Comment
Emne: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] VN packets may be dropped more often when the QUIC bit is 0 (#2400)

(2) bring it under header protection for server-generated packets only.

I would oppose to such a design, because that disables a reverse proxy from using a single port for accepting connections and also for initiating connections, assuming that either the proxy or a middlebox in front of the proxy relies on the QUIC bit to route the packets. Greasing would be fine, because it's not something to be required for every endpoint to implement.

Are there any privacy implications to there being a "client bit"?

The bit would be a good indicator to police P2P traffic for ISPs...

You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<>, or mute the thread<>.

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