Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Long Header Packets and Routing Connection IDs (#2834)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

> Also, while I agree that an auth tag would likely be a solution, I do not believe it is acceptable that the only way to statelessly (and securely) load balance Long Header packets is to have an auth tag as part of the CID. We should allow for less complex designs.
> 
> Being able to route based on the CID consistently just by looking at the long header bit and then interpreting the destination CID accordingly would definitely make for simpler load balancing. It could even be version independent. I find the idea of a version independent LB very attractive.

Routing packets based on client-chosen CID is vulnerable to DoS attacks, compared to routing based on server-chosen CIDs (the way I've described in my previous comment).

Besides, if you are fine with routing packets based on client-chosen CID, I'd assume that you'd also be fine with routing long header packets based on the 5-tuple.

Assuming that is the case, it is my view that *not* applying CID change to long header packet narrows the designs we can choose with no practical merit.

-- 
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/2834#issuecomment-505198558