Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rework Retry packet (#1498)

Nick Banks <notifications@github.com> Fri, 29 June 2018 13:33 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 B7CA6130E98 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 06:33:02 -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 GCV5Mjltafk0 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 06:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C924D130E5B for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 06:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 06:33:00 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1530279180; bh=jP+Rj1FwItiL/CQcIg97kY/uQtfDCP6T/3xUu40iAjc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=xcy+642Rul1pCfMp00nzZS23ZZz/dFx2qYg079MS57sCCj84p3M6eV1PVYqNLuo16 MRsQn3Iel1efpJuh3PynBjZ7dWH+ubZCRZE/v7N08u3oHc4SQlgmIWpoA5qcb6CUOx dd3LmHXib92z9JcC7U9VpBMC2K01StN3+fFLDMT0=
From: Nick Banks <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4aba90e02597c454bb1f339a5fb28b3b2df1cf41dc392cf00000001174df70b92a169ce14138c09@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1498/review/133226949@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1498@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1498@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Rework Retry packet (#1498)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b36350bf3f9c_3ca92b15bcabef5828676"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: nibanks
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/n3lS5hBy7sQiW8xc7P0mXHEsULk>
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, 29 Jun 2018 13:33:03 -0000

nibanks commented on this pull request.



> +
+Retry Token:
+
+: An opaque token that the server can use to validate the client's address.
+
+The server populates the Destination Connection ID with the connection ID that
+the client included in the Source Connection ID of the Initial packet.
+
+The server includes a connection ID of its choice in the Source Connection ID
+field.  The client MUST use this connection ID in the Destination Connection ID
+of subsequent packets that it sends.
+
+A Retry packet does not include a packet number and cannot be explictly
+acknowledged by a client.
+
+A server MUST only send a Retry in response to a client Initial packet.

So, for a DDoS mitigation device that just sees a 0-RTT packet (assuming the Initial was lost/reordered) it should just drop it instead of sending a Retry? That works, but I just wonder why not use that extra info to do the Retry immediately. Otherwise, the client will eventually retransmit the Initial, and then have to pay an additional RTT for the retry.

-- 
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/1498#discussion_r199159742