Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5tuple routing (#3536)

Mike Bishop <> Wed, 01 April 2020 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C230D3A1043 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 07:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 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_28=1.404, 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 MtacPX74ah3L for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 07:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE12E3A1042 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 07:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 07:31:16 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1585751476; bh=AzItmy2O0ljGEbjxLMoXQrEChuMHoXiXkhmoPtICXjc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hSRKriK1ASpwgs9Txbc2Zq/gJkGFnwfiSeendOiUnpPzOfLOBQpAhXEPBshmndYaD 7d/Vxo9SlMHiNscp2kVXVEtVRUP58suyxbySxhkdZrDiCmZ01StMZazt10TaMEejD9 t16z8xdZL0/kXM6xHuxiCkQzdgCv/fxvUCRtLjSQ=
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5tuple routing (#3536)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e84a5b497e3a_9aa3fe5e6acd968268a5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 14:31:20 -0000

@MikeBishop approved this pull request.

> @@ -1156,6 +1156,34 @@ SHOULD ignore any such packets.
 Servers MUST drop incoming packets under all other circumstances.
+### Considerations for 5-tuple routing architectures
+QUIC endpoints can be deployed behind a 5-tuple based routing architecture that
+delivers packets based on both the source and destination IP addresses and
+ports. When routing depends on addresses that the endpoint does not control,
+changes to the IP address or port of peers could result in packets being routed
+to a different server. The following actions could mitigate or resolve
+operational and security issues in this case:
+* Endpoints can use an out-of-band mechanism to deliver packets to the correct
+destination or transfer state from the original destination.
+* A server can request that a connection be migrated to an address that is
+unique using the preferred_address transport parameter. For example, the initial

It seems like the property we're intending to talk about is not uniqueness across clients, but an address that reaches that server specifically rather than a group of servers.  (Or reaches a smaller group of servers capable of internal routing based on CID, which amounts to the same thing.)  Perhaps the right way to express this is "an address that does not rely on 5-tuple routing"?

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