IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] TP to disable migration (#1447)

erickinnear <notifications@github.com> Fri, 15 June 2018 01:50 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 C3F4E130EC0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 jSSO5Yf93I5n for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-7.smtp.github.com (out-7.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27290129385 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 18:50:06 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1529027406; bh=peaVMCNbSBMQrBiLqEKMDcZqV+PRp/6oajAfFdsMdWs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=rCavM7NgxH1UmOYoHe+Q/WURzeQ2TjnmsrK/XEz/7K3GTnPEhYxTkH/HASnxzktIP 68MT+ELOPbzfiS05fvPT4eErCO5cwImvNxsV0Af3KSIwc+y5s7cJiHhaeGCtqnfk+G N00CP77XUMMLYUNZix2MMxk18QFVH+P2j2PT4hDw=
From: erickinnear <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab4f3336c83a1829fa4e3b0676534778d8d35ee77a92cf00000001173add4e92a169ce13d3250f@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1447/review/129022900@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1447@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1447@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] TP to disable migration (#1447)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b231b4e1db29_2a493fe281d7af84100548"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: erickinnear
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/mn5uboGxTauNEgabQqYET7IwmwY>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 01:50:09 -0000

erickinnear commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1289,6 +1290,13 @@ preferred_address (0x0004):
 : The server's Preferred Address is used to effect a change in server address at
   the end of the handshake, as described in {{preferred-address}}.
 
+disable_migration (0x0009):
+
+: The server does not support migration of connections to a different IP
+  address. Clients MUST NOT send any packets, including probing packets, from an
+  IP address other than that used to perform the handshake.  This parameter

This seems mildly ambiguous -- isn't there a scenario where the client doesn't necessarily have control over that IP? I'm not saying that that's the common case, but it could happen that the client doesn't just have a different port after a NAT rebinding, but that it actually shows up as coming from a different address entirely depending on how things are routed between NATs, especially after inactivity. 

-- 
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/pull/1447#pullrequestreview-129022900

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email