Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 13:34:54 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts
 <reply+AFTOJKYYV2TIINVCLISSQE542AR65EVBNHHCITYZTQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608/631067348@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5-tuple routing and SPA (#3608)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="--==_mimepart_5ec442ee4d74d_42743f94330cd968209381";
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/5aRtTxvWhwBczKELBWyaBe4eGOY>


----==_mimepart_5ec442ee4d74d_42743f94330cd968209381
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've thought about this, and I don't believe we need this change, but I also think the change @kazuho suggested makes the current behavior better overall.

A server that supports migration on the SPA(ie: unicast) and not on the handshake address(ie: anycast) will end up not disabling migration and hoping that most clients migrate to the SPA or don't support migration of any sort.  That seems like a plausible hope, though I'm a bit leery of hope based protocol design.

-- 
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/3608#issuecomment-631067348
----==_mimepart_5ec442ee4d74d_42743f94330cd968209381
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<p></p>
<p>I've thought about this, and I don't believe we need this change, but I also think the change <a class="user-mention" data-hovercard-type="user" data-hovercard-url="/users/kazuho/hovercard" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/kazuho">@kazuho</a> suggested makes the current behavior better overall.</p>
<p>A server that supports migration on the SPA(ie: unicast) and not on the handshake address(ie: anycast) will end up not disabling migration and hoping that most clients migrate to the SPA or don't support migration of any sort.  That seems like a plausible hope, though I'm a bit leery of hope based protocol design.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&mdash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608#issuecomment-631067348">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFTOJKZX4BJRRFEPVAAYWXLRSLUO5ANCNFSM4MT247UQ">unsubscribe</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AFTOJK36ZRLPAZWD4FJFMATRSLUO5A5CNFSM4MT247U2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEWOVFVA.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608#issuecomment-631067348",
"url": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608#issuecomment-631067348",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>
----==_mimepart_5ec442ee4d74d_42743f94330cd968209381--