Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Transport Draft should opine about 5-tuple based load balancing (#3500)

martinduke <notifications@github.com> Fri, 06 March 2020 18:50 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 D604B3A07A0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:50:37 -0800 (PST)
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, 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 XQKXwTD9o8Je for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:50:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55E393A079F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:50:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-bb778fb.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-bb778fb.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.102.56]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD806A0B75 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:50:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1583520635; bh=l/5/dk6E1Hs/hBSk723auAlZo9v7BFMux3b7puxGcUk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=NdMoqrjiE22WriovQXIdVCmowkZFJPemdMoMG+SIVcePFrKwMWQbKV5/ZI6nUdtpF Oqx6nlbefhTYB3/psJDgeN8IAEk8mORjHQcxsbDkz063yq3JFznCx5DCf5biC8unX9 8ocBeTaF6BLo0nsFqW7GO5OJbBOvcdU4SqNrRk5c=
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 10:50:35 -0800
From: martinduke <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK677RFTYDVGSWBCH254NZ6HXEVBNHHCEUKFCI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3500/595908046@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3500@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3500@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Transport Draft should opine about 5-tuple based load balancing (#3500)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e629b7b27c97_4be33f819a8cd95c60534"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinduke
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/KUs1asKg9P-qDC0nWdUV2KZjd4c>
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, 06 Mar 2020 18:50:38 -0000

I don't think this captures Ryan's concern: when the server is using a non-zero CID and also is behind 4-tuple routing. I think he's looking for a section of text to coherently describe what you have to do here:

- send either disable_migration or preferred_address; or
- forward packets between servers; or
- either don't use a common stateless_reset key, or put client address/port in the reset token.

This is sort of ops-drafty but there real requirements on servers to behave in a secure way. I think someone with full command of the transport draft would figure this out, but it is not clearly stated anywhere.

-- 
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/3500#issuecomment-595908046