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

Kazuho Oku <> Fri, 01 May 2020 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BD93A096C for <>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.919
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ko_vBlTWT6zO for <>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 357E43A0969 for <>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B666A0CA0 for <>; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 19:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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 <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
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
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: Fri, 01 May 2020 02:31:44 -0000

>> 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: