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

ianswett <> Thu, 12 March 2020 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558FD3A07D5 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 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_20=1.546, 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 svYqIZMX0lvz for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5460E3A07E2 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:21:43 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1584019303; bh=dj1FT2+I5vYsAXPp2q9AlqC+j/Pk8Wvtz8odw+nNnwo=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=pDUXGskzZdWxVdfhfnZcgpiNe1BeRpOWVxtKXBy3I01TTmgDNUZtT1YyjLz4NOQrv qbcQ3LPinyodSSYFVM/d23LzyenAbEtWubCEoHN9XdcZUSsu+VfqCJ08vGYUqR2YLb AGvlHqQiK1cNJNUyYgSMXPFkHm9hS7vBFicklgdw=
From: ianswett <>
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_5e6a37673b7d7_6ea13fcafeacd95c755ce"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:21:51 -0000

> The problem of responding to a probe without retaining state for that path (in addition to this performance implication) is that the server burns a CID for each probing packet. As stated in the [original comment](, the worst case scenario is that CIDs will be consumed at a high rate when a client probes multiple paths simultaneously.

Personally, I don't think this worst case scenario is very bad at all.  But I'd support adding some cautionary/explanatory text.

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