IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Connection migration optional? (#1271)

Praveen Balasubramanian <notifications@github.com> Fri, 15 June 2018 05:13 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 6C482130DC3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 22:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 oP9nWXrTCHpR for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 22:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820D1130DC2 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 22:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 22:12:59 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1529039579; bh=rMyX0Kl7LuIJIcm+NrGcvhd8RiakjGA0xfzb8Og6U+k=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=hHdsLLfgxUKw2f7cx97evw1X57dDmurh+XM7qPFkwezDMXfZp1LAkPHj8gVtWBHIl +W4GPqcq5ScFn/AFDZs/XAn4uXIrIiKaVAz7XQMa3kFLRe14Cx0jNUq+YelFFoOgvs pczQD9f5FMHkBOR0MBmGxX47mz2hmovhas14rv0k=
From: Praveen Balasubramanian <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4abe250fa9c828d715fb384b9a3fd6890b3c0b33d5a92cf00000001173b0cdb92a169ce129955d7@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1271/397515603@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1271@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1271@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Connection migration optional? (#1271)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5b234adb7fc8b_3d913f89903e2f842173d7"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: pravb
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/y8ETSDb6DD27gtCt4oy2iPi2Vq0>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 05:13:03 -0000

@erickinnear supporting connection migration on server side requires updating of load balancers to be QUIC aware which will not be possible in many deployments for a while especially when the web server and the load balancer are not under the same administrative domain. In these cases even NAT rebinding will not work correctly and the solution is to use keep-alives if connections become inactive and want to be long-lived.  So if the server doesn't negotiate the TP then the client can automatically turn on keep-alives.

@tfpauly I am fine making the default as enabled and the TP flips it to disabled. The goal is to allow incremental deployment until load balancers can be upgraded.

-- 
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/1271#issuecomment-397515603

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status