Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5tuple routing (#3536)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 28 April 2020 23:07 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 CEA103A0878 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:07:52 -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 Dr9k7OfR9ecu for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-13.smtp.github.com (out-13.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D78463A0876 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-5825cd4.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-5825cd4.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.22.68]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C46F26173E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1588115267; bh=hIsS4nebYeLVkY5lkH8VFUoZnJ2XQlJY5XYrS3NqW9M=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=grtqwFLqDjRzv3foKX9RQnEYtxBu583drLWLerKw+Agkihg/mX46iCPaEu5CxmIAs /NjZWtxd7OhvPNXH3Jb/eauQKzJUp6VTu3nNFKeWJ1jXURsDGjFBNcpjVGM36MsK/2 IddLxWkqjfTBkzeZeWWchkW71yoyPfuZpkaS6IYc=
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:07:47 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2GTVKES5TTMMHQMDF4WSMEHEVBNHHCFYX2PM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536/review/402271809@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5tuple routing (#3536)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ea8b74333f26_5b293f93378cd96c339c5"; 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/K7RW1zxHAcocNzy3CJ0vqk23Q9c>
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, 28 Apr 2020 23:07:53 -0000

@ianswett commented on this pull request.

Some more editorial comments.

> @@ -1156,6 +1156,30 @@ SHOULD ignore any such packets.
 
 Servers MUST drop incoming packets under all other circumstances.
 
+### Considerations for simple load balancers
+
+A server farm could be deployed behind a simple load balancer that routes

```suggestion
Servers could be deployed behind a simple load balancer that routes
```

> +* Servers could use an out-of-band mechanism to forward packets or connection
+state to the correct endpoint.

```suggestion
* Servers could use an out-of-band mechanism to forward packets to the correct server based
on Connection ID.
```

> +If a server behind such a load balancer does not implement a solution to
+maintain connection continuity SHOULD disallow connection migration
+via the disable_active_migration transport parameter.

```suggestion
Servers behind load balancers that do not implement a solution to
maintain connection continuity SHOULD disallow connection migration
via the disable_active_migration transport parameter.
```

> +following methods to for connection continuity when a client's address changes.
+
+* Servers could use an out-of-band mechanism to forward packets or connection
+state to the correct endpoint.
+
+* If the server deployment can use other non-load-balanced server IP
+addresses or ports than the one that the client is initiating connections on,
+servers could use the preferred_address transport parameter to request
+that clients move to these server addresses. Note that clients could choose
+not to use the preferred address.
+
+If a server behind such a load balancer does not implement a solution to
+maintain connection continuity SHOULD disallow connection migration
+via the disable_active_migration transport parameter.
+
+Server deployments that use such load balancing might still allow for

```suggestion
Server deployments that use such load balancing might allow for
```

-- 
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/3536#pullrequestreview-402271809