Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify text around preferred address (#3589)

ekr <notifications@github.com> Mon, 11 May 2020 11:59 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 6AA913A0921 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 04:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 Z3KJ5qkesQ5v for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 04:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-15.smtp.github.com (out-15.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA2E83A08E9 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 04:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-fa7043e.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-fa7043e.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.109.45]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297F126156E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 04:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1589198349; bh=oDiDda2OXHV/3vYT4GY0S8XS7una4RKkvhJiSlTbKWs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=F8sMozGXNJgURW1ndBG/sAAE15kSJ3d792WZc9uuJ+XyRSWuENWA61uvkioLn/wuh L2zMZJYotgRnzzGwSEmxJDNr9e12wovLT0WEOFaJmLrHuCb8RyDfMiryaNshqngEU3 aMGFEGDjxh2yEvxpkFfYrY6TI4GRpCrbqmaw4XgM=
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 04:59:08 -0700
From: ekr <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZ2FFPEOE7Z7WNJH754YUPQZEVBNHHCH4LVNY@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3589/review/409100521@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3589@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3589@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify text around preferred address (#3589)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5eb93e0cb83dc_2ead3fd3cf2cd96c1253d5"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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/ISovw6mVIb2dTPt6HS3I-cSko7A>
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: Mon, 11 May 2020 11:59:18 -0000

@ekr commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1084,10 +1084,10 @@ Sending a RETIRE_CONNECTION_ID frame indicates that the connection ID will not
 be used again and requests that the peer replace it with a new connection ID
 using a NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame.
 
-As discussed in {{migration-linkability}}, endpoints limit the use of a
-connection ID to a single network path where possible. Endpoints SHOULD retire
-connection IDs when no longer actively using the network path on which the
-connection ID was used.
+As discussed in {{migration-linkability}}, endpoints MUST limit the use of a
+connection ID to packets sent from a single local address.  Endpoints SHOULD
+retire connection IDs when they are no longer actively using the network path on
+which the connection ID was used.

Perhaps the problem is the use of "network path". As I understand it, the requirement here is that from your perspective the 5-tuple be the same, right? The issue is that with NAT your perspective and others may different. So  perhaps "MUST limit the use of a connection ID to a single pair of remote/local address"

> @@ -2277,11 +2278,21 @@ linked by any other entity.
 At any time, endpoints MAY change the Destination Connection ID they send to a
 value that has not been used on another path.
 
-An endpoint MUST use a new connection ID if it initiates connection migration as
-described in {{initiating-migration}} or probes a new network path as described
-in {{probing}}.  An endpoint MUST use a new connection ID in response to a
-change in the address of a peer if the packet with the new peer address uses an
-active connection ID that has not been previously used by the peer.
+An endpoint MUST NOT reuse a connection ID when sending from more than one local
+address, for example when initiating connection migration as described in
+{{initiating-migration}} or when probing a new network path as described in
+{{probing}}.
+
+Similarly, an endpoint MUST NOT reuse a connection ID when sending to more than
+one destination address.  However, if an endpoint receives packets from a new
+source address with the same destination connection ID, it MAY continue to use
+the current connection ID with the new address.

Do we actually have to make this exception? I haven't been tracking all of the conversations, but why not just have endpoints use a new CID in this case.

In general an endpoint MUST limit the use of a connection ID to a single pair of remote and local addresses. This prevents linkage between network paths. However, if an endpoint may experiences unexpected NAT rebinding, that endpoint's peer may receive a packet from a new remote address but reusing an existing connection ID, thus apparently violating this rule linking those paths. [TODO: Something about how you have to accept this?]
As an exception to the rule above, if an endpoint sees a given connection ID reused from a new remote address, it MAY also reuse its corresponding connection ID when sending to that address, as long as it sends from the same local address.




-- 
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/pull/3589#discussion_r422984471