Return-Path: 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 8FFEE128D0C for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 14:08:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 OPXkFL_5LNBY for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 14:08:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E73312D4ED for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 14:08:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 14:08:23 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1543874903; bh=LRY8CvXajvqAxqhnJ90ldgrcbfaV9Hk93TVGEgkcNnw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=xFL6OWQsQaoWiPwQK20/9peIgbjaM1g0MwpZW764SLkVMjnIZiRQzmITWomtwLeyU mkU3zQe3LxvS6Jg4DiMDsDd3XnIgRBi8I50jRWztnEC9qYwgYZDQWEyVswfz2AJdHT reQwnv9A7q8tiT6BUh+vo4wqaHS/8gktPnOU7wXg= From: hardie Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Client port for new connections (#2061) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c05a95766103_5f853f86704d45b4266138"; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list X-GitHub-Sender: hardie X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org 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: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 22:08:27 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5c05a95766103_5f853f86704d45b4266138 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:34 PM Kazuho Oku wrot= e:=0D =0D > I think the fear we have with QUIC is that some NATs are going to run o= ut=0D > of UDP ports, or that they would be reusing ports at a rate so fast tha= t we=0D > would be seeing involuntary migrations with connections that are idle f= or=0D > just a small fraction of time.=0D >=0D > Given that there is sparse data on this, I tend to support=0D @martinthomson's view that we ought to let practice emerge here rather th= an=0D trying to specify it. Getting the right behavior for small NATs,=0D enterprises, and CGNs may not be one-size fits all for these trade offs.=0D= =0D regards,=0D =0D Ted=0D =0D =0D =0D > Reusing the client-side tuple for multiple connections do mitigate the=0D= > issue.=0D >=0D > The trade-off here is the privacy concern that @martinthomson=0D > pointed out. I agree that it is a=0D= > concern, however I might also argue that hiding who's behind does not h= ave=0D > a practical benefit for small NATs (e.g. home routers). And huge NATs (= e.g.=0D > carrier-grade) might have an observer within the NAT.=0D >=0D > =E2=80=94=0D > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.=0D > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub=0D > ,=0D > or mute the thread=0D > =0D > .=0D >=0D =0D =0D -- =0D You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.=0D Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:=0D https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2061#issuecomment-443889007= ----==_mimepart_5c05a95766103_5f853f86704d45b4266138 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:34 PM Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>= ; wrote:
=0D
=0D > I think the fear we have with QUIC is that some NATs are going to ru= n out
=0D > of UDP ports, or that they would be reusing ports at a rate so fast = that we
=0D > would be seeing involuntary migrations with connections that are idl= e for
=0D > just a small fraction of time.
=0D >
=0D > Given that there is sparse data on this, I tend to support
=0D @martinthomson's view that we ought to let practice emerge here rathe= r than
=0D trying to specify it. Getting the right behavior for small NATs,
=0D enterprises, and CGNs may not be one-size fits all for these trade offs.<= br>=0D
=0D regards,
=0D
=0D Ted
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D > Reusing the client-side tuple for multiple connections do mitigate t= he
=0D > issue.
=0D >
=0D > The trade-off here is the privacy concern that @martinthomson
=0D= > <https://github.com/martinthomson> pointed out. I agree that i= t is a
=0D > concern, however I might also argue that hiding who's behind doe= s not have
=0D > a practical benefit for small NATs (e.g. home routers). And huge NAT= s (e.g.
=0D > carrier-grade) might have an observer within the NAT.
=0D >
=0D > =E2=80=94
=0D > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.=0D > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
=0D > <https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2061#issuecomment-4= 43563374>,
=0D > or mute the thread
=0D > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABVb5NX-YqodGc= amKlUksQIS36HGa2Q_ks5u1H-pgaJpZM4Y29B6>
=0D > .
=0D >
=0D =0D =0D

&m= dash;
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thre= ad.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub,= or mute the thread.3D""

=0D= =0D = ----==_mimepart_5c05a95766103_5f853f86704d45b4266138--