Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Description of the use of Preferred Address is unclear (#3353)

Eric Kinnear <> Sun, 02 February 2020 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4096112011D for <>; Sun, 2 Feb 2020 06:59:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.383
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.383 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, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7-1w2GB3qXEF for <>; Sun, 2 Feb 2020 06:59:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1E091200CC for <>; Sun, 2 Feb 2020 06:59:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A592616D3 for <>; Sun, 2 Feb 2020 06:59:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1580655594; bh=e7+gXnWpWFffwLYijuB/eTPUQvKjYfy/SKScXlXDfEU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=sjctWAaqCjz65ViPIX9lxhRCllovVzfyxnju9kyzF8961eHAsxk6uOjQVjtmtk0Q+ 0MXVbZPzVni5k+jJXa48h8ltcFhpUMM65l+i2kx6drmuicmUfzyAOyM6iKpQe6VTZu U0BsFiaWc1lCMZboof21EIebyNbkwAvHZcQNCdLs=
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2020 06:59:53 -0800
From: Eric Kinnear <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3353/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Description of the use of Preferred Address is unclear (#3353)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e36e3e9b3189_30ea3fd9d26cd9643821f3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: erickinnear
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2020 14:59:56 -0000

So far, we haven't tied the server's knowledge of the client's address to anything about a CID, and a lot of the attacks against migration involve an actor on the network changing the path & address from which the server thinks the packets are coming, even if the client does not actually change anything. I haven't thought this all the way through yet, but it seems as though trying to have the server issue "address-specific" CIDs leads us into some potentially tricky territory.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: