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

ekr <notifications@github.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 01:34 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 1A4093A0D05 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:34:29 -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 wl-a8Ohbuw2k for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:34:27 -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 B953D3A0D01 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-2ef7ba1.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012C0661E36 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1594172067; bh=eBB3apyHgqd4JAlct1ZEZKvoit4cch/+Gya7Ntzq/LE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=WNVI1bK8Wk04XZaUqFtmomvO1eadpv+KsAgcaDQCBMdB0uUpbZByfBh/p3UGeDIwi nIf/qX4TyZw7IqPpX47Rk/d8kR0PKXLFz6iEThZH7+DUJn1SKSJD0dt8xsb6+s7zfg cP+vjO6MKOGTL1Wek5Dxz5QcfBkjLWeVZviD9Fko=
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:34:26 -0700
From: ekr <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3XNOS6PTHPLRCZBEN5CEB2FEVBNHHCN2JJGQ@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@github.com>
Subject: [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_5f0522a2e66fe_9f23fb24dacd96c35284b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ekr
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/yI5ap26EVfpZj9W4vd8e1H3kg3w>
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, 08 Jul 2020 01:34:29 -0000

> On confirming a peer's ownership of its new address, an endpoint MUST
immediately reset the congestion controller and round-trip time estimator for
the new path to initial values (see Sections A.3 and B.3 in {{QUIC-RECOVERY}})
unless it has knowledge that a previous send rate or round-trip time estimate is
valid for the new path.  For instance, an endpoint might infer that a change in
only the client's port number is indicative of a NAT rebinding, meaning that the
new path is likely to have similar bandwidth and round-trip time. 

This is kind of an odd formulation. What knowledge does the endpoint have in this case that we don't already have? Why not just make an explicit exception for port-only changes?




-- 
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