Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Transport Draft should opine about 5-tuple based load balancing (#3500)

Martin Thomson <> Wed, 04 March 2020 22:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987723A0B3B for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 14:55:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 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_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 pd3vr4uZ6u2A for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 14:55:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 454453A0B39 for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 14:55:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D18C60802 for <>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 14:55:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1583362549; bh=1QoMhg8DEZ/eQHd33HcQVUoDdgruu4LE7zC2/vMqZMk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=IsmQLlhFm/2baVpwxo+NHNQwlmLRbiuFTYdgnP9Y9Xe44jE+AuXkkZSWLFnaICsR4 CqzCUpqrKPy2FMYFQz3KHiSxGpa1CZbOl8suGDdyddTkU2HilP1hCfQjc7gH5PSb7N UToOEQc0ldK3tvCJe3/MhN1bVOgJPsbv+6sy9540=
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 14:55:49 -0800
From: Martin Thomson <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3500/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Transport Draft should opine about 5-tuple based load balancing (#3500)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e6031f5af8a_16883feaaaccd95c48871"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 22:55:52 -0000

We did discuss this issue. Use of empty connection IDs and demultiplexing based on source addresses.  The conclusion there was that this was OK: people could do that, as long as it was clear that what they were getting was not different than TCP.  That is, we made it clear that if you don't use the identifiers that you control (your addresses, the connection ID), then you accept that you can't handle migration at all and connections will drop (well, unless you do something like trial decryption, which has some obvious scaling issues).

The outcome of that discussion was captured in #2868 

Assuming that Ryan finds this answer satisfactory (and I haven't missed anything), then I suggest we just close this as a duplicate of #2844.

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