Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5tuple routing (#3536)

Kazuho Oku <> Thu, 26 March 2020 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5024D3A0767 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.687
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01] 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 0gGhNctIKOMl for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99F343A0DB0 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:38:30 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1585265910; bh=1vVfQ0hk2iKBuAyIr8O5oGoAOB2aT97k+bMGGjdxOHc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=pHSmrbep09gpi2AD3YZJ72b+93LSEjtRsLXGrIKGmC7AIkaTrx90ypG/umrILH9zf LDfsheeDXib1OlfzskTdMazGzKHrzyP4GgEkqrcki5PihbjXWGme132OslmgZHzQ+v eZIdz1Mef56O9pEP76bO7o2XxGY2SZ34MJPq1ZeI=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5tuple routing (#3536)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e7d3cf6572c6_1f13ff9094cd9601279bc"; 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, 26 Mar 2020 23:38:57 -0000

@kazuho commented on this pull request.

Thank you for the changes. Looks fine to me, with one editorial concern below.

> @@ -6387,6 +6387,36 @@ following properties:
 Note that these guarantees are the same guarantees provided for any NAT, for the
 same reasons.
+## Considerations for 5-tuple routing architectures
+QUIC servers can be deployed behind a 5-tuple based routing architecture that
+delivers packets based on both the source and destination IP addresses and
+ports. In such an architecture, clients that change IP address or port are
+likely to be routed to a different server. There are several actions that can
+mitigate or resolve operational and security issues in this case.
+* Servers can use an out-of-band mechanism to deliver packets to the correct
+destination or transfer state from the original destination.
+* If the server has another address where the 5-tuple based routers are not on-
+path, the preferred_address transport parameter can communicate that address and
+thus support changing client IP addresses without difficulty.

The text sounds a bit too affirmative to me.

Not all clients would support the preferred_address TP, even those supporting the TP might have reasons not to migrate to the preferred address. All the server can do is *hope* that they would migrate.

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