Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] If you want a Stateless Reset you need to send a much larger packet than before (#2770)

Mike Bishop <> Thu, 06 June 2019 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C4512013D for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 15:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.605
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 rNu6IIKVT-eg for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 15:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF80A1200FF for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 15:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 15:57:44 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1559861865; bh=p3Zm5sG91ExLv72moqbjTRzaLWgD0ZwBDVlAwpoldwE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=xFChSRYXzOkogE97YG1q2oAHwPFk0xj04IFROiwDwOhThGz9VuJqxfI3o9jZEDKPM zp6tkiAGubXwN7CLLqCgTljPisxJhHc53xVdNPImrKR/dOgSjXPJSj+NGzuKDihvvs glYfGWaYN/PmmwstthhO0uS2oOeXsGRYYmBitOfk=
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2770/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] If you want a Stateless Reset you need to send a much larger packet than before (#2770)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cf99a68f03a1_53153fd5598cd96c1064bf"; 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
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: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:57:48 -0000

The problem is that while you as a server can do that, the question here is what size packet the client needs to send to provoke that behavior from a _generic_ server.  And the server can't just base it on the CID size that it uses locally, because what really matters is size relative to other packets flowing in that direction, i.e. the client's CID.  Which will often be zero, but can be immense and we need to account for that.

We currently say:
> An endpoint can increase the odds that a packet will trigger a Stateless Reset if it cannot be processed by padding it to at least 40 bytes.

There's a crazy way out by embedding your own minimum CID size (either unencrypted or non-privately) in every packet so that a server can use that to determine whether it could safely send you a smaller SR.  But adding an extra byte to all packets to save ~30 bytes per keepalive doesn't seem likely to work out well.

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