Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5-tuple routing and SPA (#3608)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 01 May 2020 02:31 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 00BD93A096C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.919 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.82, 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 ko_vBlTWT6zO for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 357E43A0969 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f045d1f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.54]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B666A0CA0 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1588300301; bh=X9OIrBvw2uj5Qz8pNcPfKYd4rn9A5n4dUotem3L5Tjc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=jeFmBKLOrhSZa/VWNXB6VOD7aKBHg84FfIYB3GtR6YLlhYEuyxXR6pk5d5o+2KnDO ppGh0RhHs7Cerviw/JUs1DX9qiht90ZQ2rA89Gm4/XWkAU6wHzqXPNSe2OVCpKWEfL FEPCbAtbzQ4J4R1XnOkVuSefwL3yvcbTzFFcUG9U=
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:31:41 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK75OZZQEUSBLHFQG4V4W5VQ3EVBNHHCITYZTQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608/622219056@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5-tuple routing and SPA (#3608)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eab8a0d2c01d_54923fb447acd95c591d4"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/CdWruxDBomuvPdWdHdxPkxw9lnI>
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, 01 May 2020 02:31:44 -0000

@MikeBishop 
>> Per-definition, server-preferred address is an address that is capable of receiving packets from any address.
> 
> I don't think this is necessarily true, though I agree that we're talking about smaller and smaller fractions of server space.

While I agree that it might not necessarily be true at the moment, I might argue that it is going to be true.

The basis of the resolution for #3559 and #3565 (both on consensus call) is that servers using preferred address would not be using the server's address for distinguishing between connections. We also know that a server cannot use client's address (unless there is out-of-band knowledge), because clients are not required to use the same 2-tuple when migrating to a different address (and also because there are NATs).

The outcome is that the server has to rely on CID when using SPA. And therefore I might insist that servers using SPA would always be capable of handling further migration.

-- 
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/3608#issuecomment-622219056