Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How many datagrams can a client send prior to validating the path? (#2135)

Kazuho Oku <> Thu, 13 December 2018 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404D512D7F8 for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:23:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.459
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.459 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 2NoVSdVljTaL for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:23:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95409128CFD for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:23:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:23:25 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1544693005; bh=uWxMdSd8rjl/JTdm/VnQ9DgozcPhUuLHnxCBi8IMJcE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=blUu2h+2jRLSLfDUvLu6LUX6rcWOelv95uFeSkw2Bh7mU09hpavFhp9LZa0AQgo9q NvOV4b3W6Snwahrq3cV/TE4qltD9yRAcPZWY4ghbrRXiH5KiSjWjf73uJVGv/OtuWE BmAY2Y9mR6kB/g1Bec5GxG7H/ZAMgm/QepMc3QJQ=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2135/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] How many datagrams can a client send prior to validating the path? (#2135)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c12250d9be95_123b3fd2e9ed45bc19773b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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, 13 Dec 2018 09:23:30 -0000

> We limit amount of bytes now, not number of packets, no?

That's a good point. This is not a reflection attack (unlike the server's packets) and therefore it makes more sense to define a limit using number of bytes.

> If we limit the client, it would need to be a rate limit, otherwise it would never be able to connect again later when network conditions improve.

IMO it can be a fixed number of bytes that can be transmitted in one RTO. For example, "a client SHOULD NOT send more than 3 * MTU bytes per every retransmission timeout, until it receives a packet from a server."

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