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

Martin Thomson <> Mon, 30 March 2020 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A7C3A14D0 for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.474
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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=0.726, 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 Gz7YGiENLGPz for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE1213A14CC for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67B628297C for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1585608268; bh=RgQDperDbqfL7jJMWxrFRz9I35kECeWEXJml5pwySgA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=b20RxWYINJl6QeUjJqjlCW1PBqF4+OoErArDoEVR+VjaM24mPxxCTOGKUDgBYQP8t cnySiUbVEkEHnL0D8jP+tq/z21KH3hPLTGyE6Y1BdqxG7OaKDZJ9rJPl7pWiNNnGIZ Umi58qcQ/TjqTudkAtZWBRsEZtoB1ydK1tsOW+Xw=
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:44:28 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <>
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_5e82764ca622b_4a273fac15ecd96015348d"; 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: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:44:31 -0000

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

> @@ -1156,6 +1156,34 @@ SHOULD ignore any such packets.
 Servers MUST drop incoming packets under all other circumstances.
+### Considerations for 5-tuple routing architectures
+QUIC endpoints can be deployed behind a 5-tuple based routing architecture that
+delivers packets based on both the source and destination IP addresses and
+ports. When routing depends on addresses that the endpoint does not control,
+changes to the IP address or port of peers could result in packets being routed
+to a different server. The following actions could mitigate or resolve
+operational and security issues in this case:
+* Endpoints can use an out-of-band mechanism to deliver packets to the correct
+destination or transfer state from the original destination.
+* A server can request that a connection be migrated to an address that is
+unique using the preferred_address transport parameter. For example, the initial

Uniqueness is correct though.  The point is that the address is *in itself* sufficient for routing, for which uniqueness is necessary.  Stability is necessary for other reasons.  

That all said, it is true that linkability is a natural consequence of this.  We need to highlight that.  Servers that use this style of demultiplexing will create linkability between paths.  That's a big deal that needs to be highlighted.

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