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

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 28 April 2020 23:29 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 D1CF53A092E for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.482 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 nBik3LyZ1-HO for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D6B73A092B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-5825cd4.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-5825cd4.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.22.68]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC675C60588 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1588116578; bh=GC9gZyEa2AQXRRfYUdVdy7GnbehHZquuBbibVoV1WQI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=mIlgqJ7Qt3hh/hc9XI8rZ2blAakmMNyuRR7cjb3hsS/0kuviHWIjfVzXmG8Q8pP8M NEJU73q5SraSGfbsy/1vi39VRcZAkSOdgXL0mlrEy2Tg/ai33HOc9JF7lP2sqIQDl5 3KVKl02SI66tvKrcxUbftZIYzlvghETx+PeNLFv8=
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:29:38 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZEMPNBDTTTHWPIZYN4WSOWFEVBNHHCFYX2PM@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/402281878@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_5ea8bc62b9c8b_5b2b3f93378cd96c77492"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/CxQTbBBXZFjx-nH4ESfDuaX-Ljo>
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: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:29:41 -0000

@ianswett commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1156,6 +1156,31 @@ SHOULD ignore any such packets.
 
 Servers MUST drop incoming packets under all other circumstances.
 
+### Considerations for simple load balancers
+
+A server deployment could load balance among servers using simply source and
+destination IP addresses and ports. Changes to the client's IP address or port
+could result in packets being forwarded to the wrong server. Such a server
+deployment could use one of the following methods for connection continuity
+when a client's address changes.
+
+* Servers could use an out-of-band mechanism to forward packets to the correct
+server based on Connection ID.
+
+* If servers can use other dedicated server IP addresses or ports than
+the one that the client is initiating connections to, they could use the

```suggestion
the one that the client initially connects to, they could use the
```

-- 
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#pullrequestreview-402281878