[quicwg/base-drafts] 5-tuple routing and SPA (#3608)

Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com> Wed, 29 April 2020 15:48 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D5B3A1343 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ksioZTF7LiRY for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F6AB3A1341 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-f1f7af9.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-f1f7af9.ash1-iad.github.net []) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54732C604F3 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1588175322; bh=ni2LhrjvQXzNEyeMz7Se9YBKRXo2ANqQrtWiNgBojro=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=2DiUgbFThFrNl30dWk132x1GncnjgHq/7rPDBi8OwUJH0CR/bV75mL55Dd+1p+FVC ndHiOr5aUnBqziYCgFwxFS/6njKIGarWq0/XmSMnCpEWyEB26RpZf5RlVwqOjVvNis UkD82gnHsmMD/3asIylCyRd9ae2bzH8a0dof5lmQ=
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:48:42 -0700
From: Mike Bishop <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3FL2ZQYM347G5BLPV4WWBNVEVBNHHCITYZTQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5-tuple routing and SPA (#3608)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ea9a1da45679_52c73ff7fc4cd9642007610"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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/sJKHlGqwPiaSVUiZtoZl61U07XI>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:48:45 -0000

Offshoot from #3536 review.  Servers behind a load balancer, and the load balancer isn't CID-aware.  Each server gives out an IP:port per client in the `preferred_address`  parameter.  _If_ the client moves to the SPA, then future migration is fine -- it will continue to talk to the same server using the preferred address.  If the client doesn't move, those future migrations will break.  There's currently no way to set `disable_migration` to "only if you don't use my preferred address".

Similarly, if the primary connection is to an anycast address, if the client fails to move to the preferred address, subsequent migration will likely break.

Should we blanket recommend that clients not actively migrate if they ignore / are unsuccessful in using the SPA?  Or should there be a way for the server to indicate that?

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