IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Fri, 17 July 2020 16:07 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 E585C3A0832 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 PkKELdJM1l9I for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FC063A0889 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-b19c547.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3AEB8C0C59 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1595002043; bh=cGOoJJVnxrcPO+OF19k6GhvCkSfkZes1Ft89+0W9O7Y=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=c6LMRLfvUCR4RFjG/p7Lds77El6EeYYjZlFbh8dhMVMTslgM2ebXZqewQw1V4YK5D jRGHgKOTzhAB3tPXp1bSPHyL0V8FSuAQDoHj2klRm4iU0nn/BOvRLGe2XCn4nA2HRn QAHnEFuNCJbCs5zGgDUzQm/NK2L4OJ0oUDbhg+ps=
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:07:23 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK57M2FP6CZW4WJNY555DWW3XEVBNHHCN2JJGQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842/660192315@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f11ccbbe4526_185c3faf32ecd9683046cb"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/JbuH6d9QTWgkY4qDYy6ZBq3Urdc>
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, 17 Jul 2020 16:07:35 -0000

In section 9.3 "Responding to Connection MIgration", we allow sending the initial window per estimated round-trip time.  There's no mention of amplification limit I can see.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-29#section-9.3
An endpoint MAY send data to an unvalidated peer address, but it MUST
   protect against potential attacks as described in Section 9.3.1 and
   Section 9.3.2. 
In 9.3.1: Until a peer's address is deemed valid, an endpoint MUST
   limit the rate at which it sends data to this address.  The endpoint
   MUST NOT send more than a minimum congestion window's worth of data
   per estimated round-trip time (kMinimumWindow, as defined in
   [QUIC-RECOVERY]).
   ....
   If an endpoint skips validation of a peer address as described in
   Section 9.3, it does not need to limit its sending rate.



-- 
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/3842#issuecomment-660192315

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email