IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Multiple connections on the same port (#714)

janaiyengar <notifications@github.com> Wed, 09 August 2017 22:43 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 59AC4132461 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, 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 K-f--1JfRR4h for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2-ext2.iad.github.net [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C04EF13239B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:43:55 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1502318635; bh=TEHCY8SsTY8A54DTB4PpnYmyf8JF9rVpaUmjo1WP5Kg=; h=From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WdGRa8YZAsU0Ota+UIbQ73SH1SMOXv4Tyu6q/Z8Jt4MtAskD6yd6ed/ZI0iTAaKcL mss95BatZbiletvQA09bJdICRulqv+7F2R96SeFlySzPr1RdvE26WZNgKqZWVlPfYn T/G51sqteKwptog1zFwbyyA3CWIaf92xkFSPw4XI=
From: janaiyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba5e9d18e5cc84fefd2e2e155990bc1606209192a92cf0000000115a3522b92a169ce0ed5746a@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/714/321401729@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/714@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/714@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Multiple connections on the same port (#714)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_598b902bd590d_75a13fbe109f1c2c1223d1"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/CsJmk163bzni-2VDtfWFyZZJTu8>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 22:43:58 -0000

So, if we carry the server-chosen connection ID in transport params, we can be assured that the client will have this ID by the time it is trying to decrypt 1-RTT-encrypted packets.

So the rules then become:
- All 1-RTT encrypted packets use server-chosen connection ID.
- All other packets carry client-chosen connection ID*

* The exception to this rule is the Client Initial following a Stateless Retry Packet, but that does not matter from a load balancer's perspective, since the connection ID in Client Initial packets are supposed to be treated by load balancers as client-chosen.

Does that make sense?

-- 
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/714#issuecomment-321401729

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status