IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Coalescing different CIDs for same connection (#3800)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Tue, 14 July 2020 21:02 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 1A77E3A09DB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.574 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_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 YcqQEXd23vrQ for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-10.smtp.github.com (out-10.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AA053A099C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-ca235ff.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-ca235ff.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.110.15]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5001B120106 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594760524; bh=mGrvPg1juYyxf+/8oLiIfpbJkwY5Fs5pgQ7EfaHbUdk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=W0t/CH0PxSKTAVhkyb90zuimuBTD7woOFXAMRs4dZbpITmPlTpnChTQQYGTDufOXm bgDl4xHv9x/ffDcIr8Z8/12KhNVRdk6e07Tgqj5nogpuSVpTg7GUkAYk9rgxDMkMxu B+m5mUr9EIFtEQxJCQxlhotElFnFZ7vLPHDTddJw=
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:02:04 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7KK4KXTFMCBRVTN3V5DH7EZEVBNHHCNJ65QE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800/658411474@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Coalescing different CIDs for same connection (#3800)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f0e1d4ca61c_26283f7f98acd9682495b9"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/RLqUzVka0SwKziqf_Ik9sqe49IU>
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:02:06 -0000

> Can you say more about why you don't see this as an issue? Is it because this use case is most likely during the handshake? Or is there some other linkability already present that makes this less of an issue? regards, Ted

Both, actually.  This occurs during the handshake, when addresses are required to be stable.  Unless you're running a large number of parallel connections, all CIDs used on that 4-tuple during the handshake belong to the same connection with very high probability.  You can break that linkage by deliberately changing CID and port at the same time, but you can't do that until the handshake is confirmed.  If you want the linkage broken, you need to do that jump post-handshake anyway.

-- 
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/3800#issuecomment-658411474

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status