Re: Expected Client Response to SERVER_BUSY

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

As pointer out earlier in this thread there is text in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-applicability/ (section 2). 

Do you think anything else is needed?



> Am 20.02.2019 um 23:56 schrieb Töma Gavrichenkov <[e-mail]>:
> 
> > This mechanism provides a very low CPU cost
> > fast fallback to TCP under DoS attacks until all
> > infrastructure can support QUIC natively
> 
> There are [a] few use cases when switching from TCP to QUIC v1 (in its current state) is not feasible because of huge operational costs. So it would be a more long term solution than that, probably till v2 or even further.
> 
> > anything we do to allow non-malicious ones to
> > respond appropriately requires pre-sharing,
> > or for the connection to succeed
> 
> The question here is basically how to ensure the latter given a X00 Gbps attack scale if you're neither Facebook nor Google.
> 
> > In some circumstances, falling back to TCP
> > may be something that the application shouldn't do
> 
> Well, maybe, but then IMO the consequences of not being able to benefit from switching to TCP if you're doing certain things with QUIC should be outlined in the spec. Again, this is an application-level thing *now*, but formerly the transport used to take full care of it, and the change in that sort of breaks the habit of the users.
> 
> --
> Töma