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

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

@MikeBishop 
> Should we blanket recommend that clients not actively migrate if they ignore / are unsuccessful in using the SPA? Or should there be a way for the server to indicate that?

I do not like the first option, because IMO banning migration on the original address is a premature optimization based on what we have now, has negative effect on what we would have in the future.
My assumption is that the majority of the server deployments would be CID-aware, especially in the long term, especially in terms of traffic volume. Note that the volume of traffic is more important than the number of server deployments, as migration is about (improving) end-user experience.

IMO there are two ways forward:
* (a) State that disable_active_migration TP only applies to the original address. Per-definition, server-preferred address is an address that is capable of receiving packets from any address. There is no need to prohibit clients doing migration when connected to SPA.
* (b) Do nothing. Clients are RECOMMENDED to implement SPA, and this issue is about a small fraction of deployments that rely on non-CID-aware load balancers. We can ignore the problem.

-- 
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-621521229