IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 02:54 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 7EE67120091 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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 Jf9BFCt1tHwp for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67B66120047 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:54:12 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1563850453; bh=q53zH1stPiPWlOVzskk+xBLJVv4d76yXAUhYSVEewK0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ezn3jRL422f1ZWpauRRBy4LKw7g2Xr/x0hxMyBId3rJmH3lk2wf+wqcpGhdJ7bOPH tPeN5gLOCoVyR+D223zNwbpxGSpe51aSBolJvO7qD8E3UYuDs5+JsiOVU6rSFldHY3 bBJrJM6eK3uR2Em7FpUlRtQSCGqTYAbrLkp4DFN8=
From: Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3VGMY5WC44NRVXX5N3IOUVJEVBNHHBWZGHNE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2834/514033039@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2834@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2834@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Long Header Packets and Routing Connection IDs (#2834)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d3676d4f17ba_4603fd2418cd9641368a8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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/Fy57n0lGa9LIacl6JMOuSxw8dI4>
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, 23 Jul 2019 02:54:16 -0000

That's a long thread, but I believe I was pointing out this issue for at least a year now. Actually, we had "long headers have client's CID" for a while and then it changed.

I can see two real options ("identify that a CID is server's just by looking at it" I do not consider an option):

1. Make it explicit whose CID it is, for example by mandating that long header packets have client CID.  Then have LB keep "ClientCID -> backend" mapping for the duration of the handshake.

2. Keep it confusing whose CID is in a long header packet. Then have LB keep "4-tuple -> backend" mapping for the duration of the handshake. The implication is that no two concurrent handshakes are allowed on a single 4-tuple -- the statement that WG agreed to in NY in response to exactly this issue.

-- 
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-514033039

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email