Return-Path: 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 10958120026 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:58:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.281 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 gNsO_6nw4B-9 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5806912006E for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from github-lowworker-d31a065.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-d31a065.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.70]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A49660449 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:58:50 -0700 From: David Schinazi Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts To: quicwg/base-drafts Cc: Subscribed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Detectable Stateless Resets (#3032) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d846a9a574ba_40dc3fdc330cd95c71447"; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org 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: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:58:54 -0000 ----==_mimepart_5d846a9a574ba_40dc3fdc330cd95c71447 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit @martinduke I think your nightmare scenario is very unlikely, as it requires the three bullets you mentioned, but also depends on the size of client connection IDs. I think we can assume that: - most browsers will use zero-length client connection IDs - most servers will use non-zero-length server connection IDs At that point it's extremely unlikely that NAT/firewall manufacturers will build the "remove port mapping when you observe a 20-byte packet" feature for a minority of traffic, it's not like there's an overwhelming amount of innovation in this space... -- 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/3032#issuecomment-533418428 ----==_mimepart_5d846a9a574ba_40dc3fdc330cd95c71447 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

@martinduke I think your nightmare scenario is very unlikely, as it requires the three bullets you mentioned, but also depends on the size of client connection IDs. I think we can assume that:

  • most browsers will use zero-length client connection IDs
  • most servers will use non-zero-length server connection IDs

At that point it's extremely unlikely that NAT/firewall manufacturers will build the "remove port mapping when you observe a 20-byte packet" feature for a minority of traffic, it's not like there's an overwhelming amount of innovation in this space...

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

----==_mimepart_5d846a9a574ba_40dc3fdc330cd95c71447--