Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] disable_active_migration with SPA (#3765)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

@igorlord 
> In terms of practical considerations, embedded CDN nodes are certainly examples of deployments with high risk to reachability and fitness-for-service due to migrations after network attachment changes. However, even public-facing anycast CDN nodes can have a similar fitness-for-service risk due to attachment changes in areas with poor network interconnections (some parts of Asia, for example).

Thank you for elaborating. Good to know that we agree that the if the client should be using the same source address is an orthogonal issue to if the server disables migration for the preferred address.

My argument is, based on our shared view, that the issue should be discussed separately from disabling active migration the preferred address, because it is a separate problem (and that the current state of PR is incorrect in sense that it requires the client to use the same source address _only when_ migration is disabled for the preferred address).

-- 
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/3765#issuecomment-657913670