[quicwg/base-drafts] disable_active_migration with SPA (#3765)

Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com> Mon, 15 June 2020 16:50 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 F3A943A0EA3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.101
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.101 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 oQ4DhuXD4SoI for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.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 0C4DA3A0E9C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-1dbcc59.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-1dbcc59.ash1-iad.github.net []) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2C066042C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1592239799; bh=1R9MTeC9y2M/W5aGOmBL3bK8P3eJ3pjRL+PFgalInAk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=GnyydoiR/T1C5OpzmMXVxQVSKVv4lCvdxmTC5GJ3c6SVkH6ZruGhISMC2Xc6IpNJj tGZsUG5ULd485ug1GuZS0qDAs4UANV/fvHEbQ+VYQzsfWFSkQE+AUgF580LcUwhbaO Sj/VeCPyxj4m1RdQi50DZTSTxZwUUoyyloXybEuU=
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:49:59 -0700
From: Igor Lubashev <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK72C7BB256PYD6NDMN46OD3PEVBNHHCMFSQTA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3765@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] disable_active_migration with SPA (#3765)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ee7a6b72b578_1ee73fb12d2cd968249130"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: igorlord
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/saK5Cjyzcme_2iSLBGm8WoqbgaM>
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: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:50:02 -0000

Issue #3608 by @MikeBishop was about deployments where migration with the handshake address was problematic, but migration with server preffered_address (SPA) was ok.

However, there are deployments where servers still have a preferred address, but client migration using either server address is not likely to work well,

For example, a server is a backend in front of a load balancer (and hence wants to use a prefered address that does not go via the load balancer for improved performance and reliability).  However, the server is in a network location that is unlikely to be accessible or be a logical choice when changing to a different network attachment provider.

So it is not a matter of "disambiguating connections using CIDs" (_as posed by @kazuho in response to @DavidSchinazi in https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608#issuecomment-631869936_) but it is a matter of server's network location.

With #3670 PR, how is such server able to provide a SPA and still request that clients do not attempt an active migration after switching to SPA (occasional NAT rebidings are fine; it is changes to another network attachment provider -- active migrations -- that are not ok)?

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