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

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Sat, 21 March 2020 19:03 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 5091C3A08C0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:03:09 -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 8_hjOBxSzPD0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-26.smtp.github.com (out-26.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7399B3A08B8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-c73936b.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-c73936b.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.112.13]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3901281B8E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1584817368; bh=n6x2rUy9OZqzSvQv5t0/Qo3PaVb/kTxbJzL7UZ8pJQQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=I1LKHyP2bWNC3dn9CVNey8zHs2qOokU56DVHLFQ0tHSTmqRnKGrDiuVTxDYTFzIU7 Reh0ZHJxDylmZEGUISQui8Kk4yxWV2PH4V4lg9Xn5AvC6mZ41i0LsYWex0VJSMT+Lz l1pjzAQ9AEDXdRCVQ+0gQrcCx3vg/RYUaa9mpVb8=
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:02:48 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5GNMRR3PELT6U4TJN4QJC5REVBNHHCFYX2PM@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/378942766@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_5e7664d8e2047_6ce83ff098acd9603632e4"; 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/Kwgr29h6Dw8rEjtlWjOZQFVPgzE>
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: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 19:03:10 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.



> +## Considerations for 5-tuple routing architectures
+
+QUIC servers can be deployed behind a 5-tuple based routing architecture that
+delivers packets based on both the source and destination IP addresses and
+ports. In such an architecture, clients that change IP address or port are
+likely to be routed to a different server. There are several actions that can
+mitigate or resolve operational and security issues in this case.
+
+* Servers can use an out-of-band mechanism to deliver packets to the correct
+destination or transfer state from the original destination. Properly designed,
+this completely solves the problem and no further measures are necessary.
+
+* Sending the disable_active_migration transport parameter informs the client
+that any address change is likely to terminate the connection, which can lead it
+to use more aggressive timeouts or terminate connections when its IP address
+changes.

The more aggressive timeouts idea is new to me.  I think if the server wants a shorter idle timeout, it should specify that in the handshake via transport params.

> +delivers packets based on both the source and destination IP addresses and
+ports. In such an architecture, clients that change IP address or port are
+likely to be routed to a different server. There are several actions that can
+mitigate or resolve operational and security issues in this case.
+
+* Servers can use an out-of-band mechanism to deliver packets to the correct
+destination or transfer state from the original destination. Properly designed,
+this completely solves the problem and no further measures are necessary.
+
+* Sending the disable_active_migration transport parameter informs the client
+that any address change is likely to terminate the connection, which can lead it
+to use more aggressive timeouts or terminate connections when its IP address
+changes.
+
+* The preferred_address transport parameter can provide a path that does not use
+the 5-tuple based routers.

So can the original path?  I suspect you have something in mind here, but I'm not completely sure what that is, so it might need to be spelled out more.

> +likely to be routed to a different server. There are several actions that can
+mitigate or resolve operational and security issues in this case.
+
+* Servers can use an out-of-band mechanism to deliver packets to the correct
+destination or transfer state from the original destination. Properly designed,
+this completely solves the problem and no further measures are necessary.
+
+* Sending the disable_active_migration transport parameter informs the client
+that any address change is likely to terminate the connection, which can lead it
+to use more aggressive timeouts or terminate connections when its IP address
+changes.
+
+* The preferred_address transport parameter can provide a path that does not use
+the 5-tuple based routers.
+
+* Servers MUST either use different Stateless Reset Token keys, or encode the

I'm not a big fan of having a MUST in this section.  If we need a restriction like this, I think it should be in the section on stateless resets.

-- 
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-378942766