IETF Logo Mail Archive

[quicwg/base-drafts] Deduplication window suggested by RFC 4303 is insufficient (#3692)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Mon, 25 May 2020 03:41 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 447943A0A90 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 20:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 J72A5UZvinfx for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 20:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-11.smtp.github.com (out-11.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4DD13A0A93 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 20:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-28f8021.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-28f8021.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.98]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD829260199 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 20:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1590378059; bh=5H+ZlpKuoxLyTzY8ew7WDKOwh0eoJcnVvzCSbNCODkw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Lxk2aLQyNNuyiVgC6y5jG2QP6pq4vNz2ZwBpHehsh1Wsup6hYUDTDG88KkFKx6Wso 5UISiVOHyVoIleJWYlhu96gAqAIrH8+9HjarpnwT4ZvTSYvqdeo7wlW/5y6+KFCjCC ncpsQIFOTWMZeG11RY7lvDZ3oUoVhfggm+lfrJuQ=
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 20:40:59 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6CFCWDXX2MUB3KJYF424PUXEVBNHHCKMO44M@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3692@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Deduplication window suggested by RFC 4303 is insufficient (#3692)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ecb3e4b97f07_7adc3fbc484cd9688867e7"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/wesHylhHGfZ4KE880SXpT_F00TY>
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, 25 May 2020 03:41:02 -0000

[Section 12.3 of the transport draft](https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#section-12.3-11) requires deduplication, delegating the details to RFC 4303. I am not sure if that is enough.

IIUC, the difference between RFC 4303 and QUIC is that in case of QUIC, packets are sent using multiple paths.

Consider the case of a client connect through Wi-fi, probing a 3G network. The latency of Wi-fi could be much shorter, and the bandwidth could be high. In such case, the requirement on the deduplication window becomes high: the window needs to cover packet numbers across multiple PTOs (where PTO is calculated from the RTT of the Wi-fi).

I do not think that this case is covered by RFC 4303.

IMO, we need to at least clarify this corner case exists, otherwise, we might end up seeing servers not responding to probes sent on cellular networks, and clients failing to migrate due to that failure.

-- 
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/3692

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email