Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Be more conservative about migration? (#2143)

ianswett <> Sat, 23 March 2019 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F0112D550 for <>; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, 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 qhjN7vbGetYJ for <>; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28EBB12D4EF for <>; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:35:14 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1553384114; bh=+qwt5yqnOEfz95d4fmtSyzZH1qZe/UVNlQUk5gnMPRg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=bh+nTZDDmc1x/9BNPBb3Qqf8c52QBrb+ax507u3ymGDkVbvfShJlFMqC0oLJaVgwP lcz3FOQu8mcXT1CbLkKyt/e/qfY9bs9MzuprdkbLrM4smGsRLyu1SbkNlmEx0HivQM o5Dprs/P+hj+f1uPC9kQjBDU/69o15ycTrMbinAA=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2143/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Be more conservative about migration? (#2143)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c96c2b289e01_76ea3fb1db0d45b8482211"; 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: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:35:18 -0000

Q: Wouldn't the sender of a PATH_CHALLENGE ignore a PATH_RESPONSE that came back from a different peer address than what they send the PATH_CHALLENGE to?

But yes, duplicate packets are insanely rare and receiving a duplicate from different addresses would almost never happen without interference, so it should be a strong signal that the immediate migration should be ignored.  Of course that makes the state machine even more complex, but assuming that duplicate arrives while a PATH_CHALLENGE is outstanding, maybe it's not that much extra complexity?

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