IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)

David Schinazi <notifications@github.com> Fri, 17 July 2020 02:52 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 05A593A0FA5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 19:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 zx0kZgOb1QUd for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 19:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 900E03A0FA3 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 19:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4298C1221 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 19:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594954324; bh=riLADy4w0i6Li9BGCnItUy3AyI+QBlu4mEWykAnI1lA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=sG5uDtl/LeDskWp9yrnwvyvJEfJIQP11yQISqqRQ3XHJdQ+O+3VRlxvIh+Dq+axJK rNETYhS5Cj+MnB9GuCjuIRafTnpfJcCNTLSMnSI0pg0+DE3V/43w9uHJnNmoTnvpCs w34T/jNgbTHrYYUYtVMgZIHSExn8HE9ZXNgdeAJk=
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 19:52:04 -0700
From: David Schinazi <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4MRCGIP3AIJDBF5OV5DTZVJEVBNHHCN2JJGQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842/659804919@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f111254bd517_29c13f8e4d4cd96412211d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
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/8YdnmLAoSZjWNDeQxvvA5IssHp4>
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, 17 Jul 2020 02:52:07 -0000

@janaiyengar currently Connection Migration on gQUIC does not use an amplification limit nor path validation. We haven't seen that kind of attack at scale. I think we should add those protections when we implement the IETF take on Connection Migration, but we'll need to make sure the performance hit isn't too high. If we go with the amplification factor then we can have the client send a bunch of padding to make it work.

-- 
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/3842#issuecomment-659804919

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email