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

martinduke <notifications@github.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 23:00 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 422AE3A1520 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.082
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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=1.282, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 dBZdeuour-Eq for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-17.smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C94C73A151A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.31]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A866E1322 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1585609247; bh=hmLnCZEoZQ0KSsutDc9k2sbJBvkCcXxbv3Ohbasm7uU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=f74FOkxUF9jRmg3qOyteKnGJYaIjweeU6CLKoeBZtfTdVtd3QdI89BTBFg0jp7vF0 OMRjAQz1m7nHwen7ochVebCNU7l9V+BzT8fjaWWgdsdJUjITgv/vGCG0iOF1XkABp9 YwMhjS+UkmOzcJGBhRU5h1Yv13ZEW4E705eVUbiI=
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:00:47 -0700
From: martinduke <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4FJ2ZT2FFNZWDTN2F4RZNR7EVBNHHCFYX2PM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536/review/384291934@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5tuple routing (#3536)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e827a1f9833c_2b123f9d276cd960215851"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke
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/ChR7agR0v0Edf-yW_2JtK_aQcSM>
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: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:00:50 -0000

@martinduke commented on 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

So is the consensus here that we want to leave it with "unique"?

-- 
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/pull/3536#discussion_r400545197