Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC connection migration and IPv6 only NAT64/DNS64 Networks (#2122)

MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com> Wed, 12 December 2018 17:43 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 859E1130E4F for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:43:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.056 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_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, 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 J7MiCyG7P2SB for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:43:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 037CB1277BB for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:43:53 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:43:51 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1544636631; bh=/Zni+p5JjN16N9Gwji23UxpovMNjiW2FK0/aMh5D/xY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=oIYrHoNKON0XYSrQMuDBairYaxVbiGYjtMrrLucMSxBQ4TudV6Km5NfzqybZAKjfy olEK8kAAfXy2oj0HuLw/E9PKzNiBq2HtGK88nsheYhHrB99o6O17xSIRABWbJQhP0c XJoyFR8J/NWTgFsCCTZUpukFaEdyKdbrGbu2Yh2U=
From: MikkelFJ <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab5aaa60e79139771c8ba018f218e9404aac21516b92cf0000000118290ad792a169ce1742d117@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2122/446677534@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2122@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2122@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC connection migration and IPv6 only NAT64/DNS64 Networks (#2122)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c1148d7c785c_234d3fc93d2d45c414176e"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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/dMFxoygYq6qLGF_q_ClKAulFzIM>
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:43:56 -0000

> To easily deploy Quic behind a load-balancer one simply assigns unicast IPs to the servers and lets Quic announce these (v4 and v6) IPs to the client as "preferred address".

There is nothing easy about assigning IPs. It can be a lot more manageable to update a DNS entry than to updating all server endpoints in cluster, but it obviously depends on use case and environment.

-- 
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/2122#issuecomment-446677534