IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] VN packets may be dropped more often when the QUIC bit is 0 (#2400)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 08 February 2019 06:14 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 2788A130F2F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 22:14:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 3IradqkGHReu for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 22:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BB59130DC2 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 22:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 22:14:48 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1549606488; bh=JPbzYexI4yNp/mq744psfyxMEJelj433mqa2ONTJEGU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=PViKloyY6RXTCe8UY0M+Vr6bnv99DAxyfL/eEyIr7lWit1cGBUemGa7YwQGoq5wWV yxN+3dn3f5Z0AX/2XQfAvaQN+rXPJvTguB9rbUmBYwlQVFhvMaaIsZyKGYrKC05zax GlZEISY0NQokNGLiI602eeVgRVW5aro4XTkGrugA=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba82f70fd796552a1cd0904cabd6627570534794292cf000000011874e05892a169ce18321f5a@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2400/461702432@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2400@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2400@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] VN packets may be dropped more often when the QUIC bit is 0 (#2400)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c5d1e5838460_2ca93fad0f4d45bc1725b8"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/GSmUAnlsKxUWFl_NZwSuth-xxsw>
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: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 06:14:51 -0000

> (2) bring it under header protection for server-generated packets only.

I would oppose to such a design, because that disables a reverse proxy from using a single port for accepting connections and also for initiating connections, assuming that either the proxy or a middlebox in front of the proxy relies on the QUIC bit to route the packets. Greasing would be fine, because it's not something to be required for every endpoint to implement.

> Are there any privacy implications to there being a "client bit"?

The bit would be a good indicator to police P2P traffic for ISPs...

-- 
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/2400#issuecomment-461702432

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email