IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow servers to send a preferred address of each address family (#2296)

Ryan Hamilton <notifications@github.com> Fri, 18 January 2019 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EA51312D8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:36:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93oF3GwUOLm6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:36:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58B781312D2 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:36:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:36:46 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1547836606; bh=rlZeU53XqxPsoAZWZHc2Kp0UMDAi7l1Y1olKKOHuhA4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=GuZT1SkHIBS2lMieODXNNfHjBPzLGhJCvXle+9BLJRDn+lhKGeIF6EwJlsJTCC7ge d4sQNU5u+DlXC944938FM9Mnc6OD+/DgRcxd89RAPU3t81xxiQjzY/2g7bQtjkGwO0 m0Oh2bMTBaMpds9j5akwaBKxI1/pxvy6Tm32gjNQ=
From: Ryan Hamilton <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab1cd23d8227dd7c3cf1c9eb314142bb9202d33e8a92cf000000011859debe92a169ce179bec73@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2296/review/194228840@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2296@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2296@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Allow servers to send a preferred address of each address family (#2296)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c421cbe51b67_38593f9711cd45b4645488"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: RyanAtGoogle
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/6r5G8jBcC6loLRaiPF729yAjIFo>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 18:36:49 -0000

RyanAtGoogle commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2169,6 +2173,9 @@ receiving a probe packet from a different address.  Servers MUST NOT send more
 than a minimum congestion window's worth of non-probing packets to the new
 address before path validation is complete.
 
+When a client wishes to migrate to a new local address that is of a different
+address family from the currently used server address, the client can attempt

On our networks as well, lookups are unlikely to route to the same machine. Given that there is no reason to expect a lookup to successfully route to the same machine (even on the SAME network), forbidding it seems like the right choice.

-- 
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/pull/2296#discussion_r249144376

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email