Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Spin bit should be applied per each 5-tuple rather than per connection (#1828)

[MikkelFJ <[e-mail]>]

please note my above edit - connections should not need to coordinate.

@britram:

on your first point: if the client is potentially mobile and actively moving to a new IP, it MUST have a non-zero CID length. A stationary client can of course still rebind via NAT but then zero-length is valid.

on your second point - per CID spin-bit multiplexing: it may be acceptable for single connection, but not over multiple connections multiplexing because the entity that produces packets may be running independently in different logical processes or even on isolated hardware in extreme cases.

I agree on your last point the linkability is unrealistic to avoid in praxis. The consensus thinking is, however, that it should be attempted to the extend possible. While I disgree, this appears to be the working assumption.

I think spin bit per CID as as easy as 5-tuple because you need a hashed entry in either case to track state. A spin bit per connection should be impossible if anti-linkage is working. Of course with respect to reporting any operational issues, a 5-tuple is more useful than a CID, but the hashed entry can include path information.

The main problem with spin bit visiblity is a specific end-user standing out as the only one not contributing with spin bits.


-- 
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/1828#issuecomment-436946686