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

Kazuho Oku <> Thu, 12 March 2020 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7406B3A0FDE for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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_24=1.618, 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 OQaaeD1SbQNf for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 303103A0FDC for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054C79605FD for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1583992477; bh=bmgsmLTGGTNb3j32Ka7ceaA34TWik6yCQO1JuDPFmDY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=unBTexj0bu71jpMxU2xeny84j8LRIRaTligOZL5Y1LM+qO6pfIPErGgrzYjI8R/gd OfR0Zd8rI+BnHF6XI+PyIgmermoh1Q9QRCgE78VUCtCZCU6LGbO4wlalBdMlGPFIpF 5mQo/aXYeFjuaDyCygS1hwm0WJqGJZ7uI+vqwrzU=
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:54:36 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <>
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_5e69ce9ce366a_42d53fdbe80cd95c19213f"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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 05:54:40 -0000

> So a server doesn't need to probe in response to a client that probes a path, so it doesn't really have any state to attribute to probed paths. A server can just respond to probes. The cost to it, if it doesn't, is that it has to probe after a migration and that could have performance implications.

I think I disagree with the observation.

The problem of responding to a probe without retaining state for that path 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.

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