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

Eric Kinnear <notifications@github.com> Wed, 29 April 2020 22:12 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 651853A087C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.92 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.82, 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 M8zjWna9JCRD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-23.smtp.github.com (out-23.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 652573A0879 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-3a0df0f.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.25.92]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045016601FD for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1588198324; bh=txYwF7BaEHyqWI/WyHr78rtdiO9iky4qScWU/KDk6/w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=J0RJJQdnrGu8m+WRpXk0/gEx9lLWzPITYLJpu4WJcsPgfMjCk6063MuQBwuUqCukW cSdboh71+4Jwz3IMZcr7Srl8xZk/MHlgak0EIUFA7XeNlBLQrkaioELjYyaTZcmaPX 2hQRDsFyDmC+B+IjLF2OSED4agDKh2N3YyDGdXVI=
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:12:03 -0700
From: Eric Kinnear <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK743ZDLPP4XW2I5JGN4WXOLHEVBNHHCITYZTQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3608/621492586@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_5ea9fbb3e79be_3a6e3fcb882cd95c2115d8"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: erickinnear
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/yABgUCDIt7EAI1nyIbMUytfFbYU>
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 22:12:09 -0000

What we’ve said for this so far is that SPA is limited to offering a minimum of a single additional CID that needs to work in both places, the original server and the preferred server.

As Ian says, the original server should not issue the client any more CIDs (if you have some that are deployment specific) until after they’ve successfully migrated to the new endpoint, at which point the preferred server can handle that issuance.

And as he notes, you still have to deal with the fact that there are two CIDs that the client could use, from any incoming address. 

It seems as though the full way to solve this is to define potentially disjoint sets of TPs that different servers could set to match their particular requirements (around more than just migration). In that world, if you had an initial server that couldn’t handle migration and a preferred server that did handle migration, you could set different TPs to indicate that. It goes well beyond that though, any other TP might have a different values for the original server and then have those be different with the preferred server. But that does feel an awful lot like something that goes with full server migration.

In the limited form that we have now, if you want to be able to push someone off to a different server, there are some limitations that you need to deal with, like being able to set up enough of a shared configuration for the two that the same TPs work with both. 

=================

In practice, I think this means we end up with the following situation: 

The client either moves to the requested address or it doesn’t. 
- If it does, then you’re in good shape, in theory you gave it TPs that matched what the server wanted and everybody is happy.
- If it doesn’t, then you’re unhappy, since in theory you had a reason you asked it to move in the first place. You might choose to close it down more aggressively than you would on the preferred server to save resources, or give it smaller limits for flow control, etc. 

When you’re in the “client didn’t move” state:
- If the client then tries to use the original 2nd CID that you gave, from the same IP address/port, then a non-CID aware load balancer should be fine.
- If the client then tries to use the original 2nd CID that you gave, from a different IP address/port, then a non-CID aware load balancer will not be happy. 

Of course, the problematic case is even narrower, since if the client is probing the new path they’ll see it as though there isn’t any connectivity, just like they will if there’s anything else on the new path that prevents their connection from working — this is always a risk when migrating, so they should be unsurprised and stick with their current path. 

If they’re forced to move for whatever reason, then it will be just as though they didn’t have connectivity over the new path (which they don’t) and whether or not you disable migration you’ll see the same outcome — the connection is closed.

Interestingly, I’m not actually seeing a difference from the client’s perspective in terms of outcome whether you let them try with that CID and fail or if you told them to not try.

-- 
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-621492586