Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Connection migration must be negotiated (#1271)

[Nick Banks <[e-mail]>]

@MikeBishop ideally the load balancers will be using CID, but that won't happen overnight. We don't want that to be a blocker for deploying QUIC. As the infrastructure starts supporting QUIC, then the server won't need to set this TP.

As for what actually gets turned off, it's really up to the client implementations. If they do nothing, then certain scenarios will just break, and it might cause them to execute unnecessary fallback logic, worst case, all the way back to TCP. In the case of long lived connections, the client can use this information to be more aggressive with keep alive timers if it wants to maintain the connection. Also, as you stated, the clients should not explicitly trigger any migration scenarios. In the case of a client application layer not specifying a local IP address, the transport could still prevent any extra IP/port address changes.

Also, one argument for possibly making the QUIC TP set from both client and server is the P2P scenario. A client behind a NAT wouldn't support the peer migrating unless it supported the necessary NAT punch through protocols.


-- 
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/1271#issuecomment-379366601