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

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Wed, 29 April 2020 18:27 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65DBD3A15E7 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 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_20=1.546, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M2GNGba2Ythm for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D5F33A15E6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-a27607f.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-a27607f.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.18.61]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8288CA00A6 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1588184832; bh=g48cJ40CIAe9RS78D0X3anT696bDez4nkNTkRW4ejpY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=PqV5Hk/snd1LKYcDS3E1ZwfFA2UQtgkA8g9CfLRkXvfq3L+kxYIQaUbR8L4IhnFhS 4CmsRAIABreNzmFy51Yw/uu9MZ/68aA6Hx3adCzeRu3TGKWvGTQ4cJ40/zfuvs2zXt lQVd8xm7PmhokD9yxexak6F58atR385O2ZeSHd7g=
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:27:12 -0700
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5HOGO3TPI744GGBW54WWUABEVBNHHCITYZTQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608/621384055@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5-tuple routing and SPA (#3608)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ea9c7007274d_5e023fde71ccd9609193a5"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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/uwraBLDCTCEltKu-Suxu5vyfW3U>
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 18:27:16 -0000

Good question.  This brings up a related question for me about disable_active_migration.  Given a server can decide not to give out any additional connection IDs, doesn't that give it a mechanism for disabling active migration?

Ironically, given recent decisions on connection CIDs and SPA, if an SPA is supplied, then the client always has a second connection ID it can use on any path, not just the SPA.  So my suggestion of not giving out extra CIDs fails for the original path, but not the SPA.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608#issuecomment-621384055