IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com> Mon, 13 July 2020 00:33 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 570183A0B47 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.475
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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_28=0.726, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 JHzP9T_41yxF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE3493A0B41 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2300405.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9229A0CA9 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594600392; bh=RGGJBGXAskPQ0Dv8WsWM6vPsOyy4EWcn7uHfivNJlt8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=BrJBKmNkeXdhtpx8V+Y4PCaWKUDWYjlNFse7e4e7AaFxnUQl65h4BCBZwSp7RfSyW YSw0/oepxWVS1uFTYFp8dyhvghtlP2wWzi0eeVlHBvugnuw0rNi6cn9/kuCVVB+rKR kIiSHc5dvyNZ34Au+oz/1lBuu2LbMAj8YezvrbDQ=
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:33:12 -0700
From: Jana Iyengar <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZON43CYRKMZ4YIBFF5C6GMREVBNHHCNJ65QE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3800/657300915@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_5f0babc8d9060_69fa3fe24a8cd9641687349"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: janaiyengar
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/kB2iEpHwyIrY5CE7Gy8QsZw_lnE>
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: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 00:33:15 -0000

@dtikhonov : Our assumption has been that load balancers, for instance, can simply route on the CID in the first header they see in the UDP datagram. If we allow different connections to be coalesced, that complicates things. It may also start to leak some things about the way load is distributed within the server network: if some CIDs when combined cause loss and some don't, that reveals some things about how the server load is distributed.

Is there a strong argument for changing this behavior? This new language in #3870 was always the intent. I suspect it didn't change when we started allowing multiple CIDs within a connection. Unless there's an argument for changing behavior, this is really an editorial PR.

-- 
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-657300915

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