Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can Initial/0-RTT CIDs safely be used for routing? (#2026)

MikkelFJ <> Tue, 20 November 2018 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CB612785F for <>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:29:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.47
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 nmC5wTVrDNp6 for <>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DCDF124D68 for <>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:29:22 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1542749362; bh=K05uefSKqMV7kqWR0dpEfOPNQ0bwNm2sfaSXg5i9yck=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WcqT/QfLmvsuVbikAFkaxP+0ROa35Gm/oM58sXBJiD//Y0T7Spxndtbkq1seQ5b3u MKNuj55B/mwfqkaqj7dX1GBlcsLN2Z3HKPmjQII9mU2UhSroxpEJRzelryo3MadgIx mnLAjBzaAcsh5uXEMOmlyDhvXWmeeDwTI0qYsboU=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2026/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Can Initial/0-RTT CIDs safely be used for routing? (#2026)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5bf47cb2eb1d0_355a3fe9418d45b81737f4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
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: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:29:26 -0000

Nah, I think a retry would not make sense in the above, or least not where you end up with the same external loadbalancer and public IP. In that case the load balancer could just internally swap endpoint.

So @MikeBishop is probably right about IP/port stability.

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