IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)

Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com> Sun, 12 July 2020 15:48 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 742B53A0C1B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 08:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id am2CTcNgFE47 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 08:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-27.smtp.github.com (out-27.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29F223A0C1A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 08:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-52827f8.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-52827f8.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.108.24]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A948E008F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 08:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594568935; bh=9g24muGsAjRQqDUyc1k0IPD6pQbsbYgd8g8lK8wRE0k=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=tuFJ1jUY+4Bo8ZB5wU9CbgIslh4ExFRB9jWMCqvc6PnvDeu8VnTYsuU/ctI9RHEvR te70NvY8FIJW0zTZ1bZkTaQPxTyff47LplpnlqDW5caB5RQ2de51rjhs/peGpmHlkR oSa8Q5F5DQvchf8jSsU8++jVaRJ1a4Rlmfcbtopc=
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 08:48:54 -0700
From: Christian Huitema <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4OT7QG3HOIOKUJ7VV5C4I6NEVBNHHCN2JJGQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842/657240091@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3842@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Do I need to reset congestion info when the port changes? (#3842)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5f0b30e6eef80_44773fa3a32cd9646327e3"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: huitema
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/ws4CdDiL-0LPft9WVPEgGZsYNDw>
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: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 15:48:58 -0000

I would be weary about a blanket statement that if a port (or address) change is merely rebinding, then transmission should go on with the previously estimated rate and window. The port or address change is a network event indicating that something changed. It used to be that NAT rebinding were strongly correlated with transmission hiatus -- the NAT would recycle bindings if it did not observe traffic for some time, typically about 30 seconds. It may also well be that the rebinding indicates a routing change on the path to the NAT. In both cases, the network condition did change and merely reusing the old estimates is a mistake.

-- 
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/3842#issuecomment-657240091

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status