Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Equivalence of preferred_address and NEW_CONNECTION_ID (#3560)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Thu, 09 April 2020 15:32 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 E00453A0A0C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 08:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.168, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 2O3SZ6YJhvmz for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 08:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C9693A0A0A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 08:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-6b40fdd.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-6b40fdd.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.64]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A3F661E51 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 08:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1586446366; bh=Nobnq/uRqrYfi1RQFK0UEtqa4NTtVv3k1tWZI3AYEuI=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=d3aSqtncMzbC8LNunXsXS6YjOuVP78o8F9GPY3edWQXtfuRSHpAyKaucZUYyUZBCU uoYWrXF2BUtMOuCw6Pfz60I5Zxg82RrI5XP6QwSNbuKYQ3Kxin7x+2wdMGFLDZS45C QKbodE+5IBX+DpRBJ9B80JRvDOjN/hLJMje2AEKI=
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 08:32:46 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6CWPQ2LHISFHNE2BN4TMQR5EVBNHHCGNJIQI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3560/611593332@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3560@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3560@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Equivalence of preferred_address and NEW_CONNECTION_ID (#3560)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e8f401e93bff_117d3ffa252cd96845312"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/fcKOtCPL7ky9OMTZOjlrnhs1940>
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: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 15:32:49 -0000

@DavidSchinazi I agree with your intuition, but I think we discussed this in Zurich and ended up concluding the preferred_address CIDs weren't special.  This was in issue #3348 and also came up in #3353 (which I realize hasn't gone out for a consensus call yet, that PR seems stalled?).

In the upload example, the server needs to know that the client is going to send a lot of data, which it might know via SNI, or it might not.  I tend to think the more annoying restriction is that you can't change from a non-0 length CID to a 0-length one and vice versa.  By supplying a 0-length CID later in the connection along with other CIDs, the client could choose whether it wanted to use a 0-length CID at any time.

Thinking out loud, an easier solution may be a TP like 'accept_empty_connection_id' that indicates at anytime, the peer can switch to a 0-length CID if it wants.  It could either think the 5-tuple is stable or its happy re-establishing the path with a non 0-length CID after a NAT rebind.  In this world, the Connection ID is more of a path re-establishment token.

-- 
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/3560#issuecomment-611593332