IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-00.txt

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Tue, 13 February 2018 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8329512E034 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:35:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 9vI7NX7XBmOc for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:35:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com (mail-yw0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D40112DB71 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:35:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id b16so11291863ywh.12 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:35:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+r0W+t+MQPmDAXUAePHzA4355x1r4Vw7QaB9Ktja0N4=; b=npNaJ9KCbvKzK6hKnV0m6OrGR0cplCTpXIEpfnR/8ZKtAir2Q/t92xv9EbLssPjYGo SivTpQIDZin5vN2/Mj0+PRV2GmLAMNerRevPx27TFREx8KRHwPExGe+XABCmZumXqwhu Djsa7wnhGVv6XzNh8Z0R/TDENLk8Nki14WX9bY8QI1FR3gZZvp2dws3ZL0EhBz7VRFbU D2y1g7bL+D7ucEsRUjbUsTBNmIk65z+5Q58k2ZdBjAyabGFdel8tOHyaj8e+oVJHQvO+ W7FNj1O0J7VtTbMzJownWgCuNjaTIAsNPsPUWz0HyN3Ph7A/GoWgiMQbrunD6CrBfVs7 CSsw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+r0W+t+MQPmDAXUAePHzA4355x1r4Vw7QaB9Ktja0N4=; b=TETZUCkbfRuRdKtSBwcjf8IweiHAevW/nIRA6KieAsj3VwmspMzoxIosHayIGJJPJd PF4JAkyHBhQg3PSzbRyEIp0x6+ihOzwgcyEbIAp4AEJOSztojOOiVFOqeTBpGwNf0PDA vfH9Boa5j7OKuqnc1iyV1LOEJOFdNZdD0aK+TEIyMjGtSFiMI9AJoMIMiQ+L4pM1zhem 0unjTM4lRZvRdUygYdR2FqoNxCFQQW1oLBYic5fRjOGwipX/HeMoFKfpI0RbIlrqjUkG buWXi/3FfWjU7Olglz/wtHXVYJOZOgiUDh23m2wmKJQsbnwFVn+lNcVz0xTRtc6SN0fo kwYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPATsndfZNuywC7T/Le+q/gsu4DiH0FUFjOLc4jvVme3c+iZbXUb oWuqb0VM+px+UA6C0tBym7s2F0klcQ7C1nYLq82CVg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225GNf2GBEfwqdqkYnJ5cLX56Oka7yNKfiJW+phJ4nQhYLv59AzXWi+jgBUI1oWpp4Pct3/Ugg+N4gN90KStjUc=
X-Received: by 10.37.174.33 with SMTP id a33mr8881935ybj.309.1518485707323; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:35:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.102.76 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:34:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxRq131G7XOC1YNy6N943Bar08gh8vMmhU34-vYcXOAauw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM4esxRq131G7XOC1YNy6N943Bar08gh8vMmhU34-vYcXOAauw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:34:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAedzxrdwHOKhXKxN90yxWh1Zcb3wmHtktMnGPXsCkXNDB6DpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-00.txt
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="f403045dc4de37172805650e0155"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/X1hnaUxMi46SKlPNVfucRlQznKQ>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 01:35:10 -0000

I wasn't in Melbourne, but I'm curious: why not specify a protocol
over QUIC itself?

In my experience, load balancers maintain connections to ~essentially~
all the backends for which they balance.  Could this protocol instead
be mapped onto streams in a QUIC connection between LB and backend?
If so, liveness via PING frames could be incorporated.

For security purposes, IP Tries of whitelisted LB IPs and/or running
this kind of thing over connections to backends on non-standard ports
is something I know is done.

On 12 February 2018 at 14:11, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
> Based on conversations in Melbourne, I posted a straw man for a standard way
> for load balancers and servers to coordinate on routable, unlinkable
> connection IDs.
>
> Datatracker:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duke-quic-load-balancers/
> Github: https://github.com/martinduke/draft-duke-quic-load-balancers
>
> There's nothing earthshaking here: we use DTLS for authentication and
> encryption, and have a few very simple UDP messages to keep the conn IDs
> synced. The draft isn't very long.
>
> I'll incorporate variable length connection IDs, etc, when and if they enter
> the mainline. I'm certainly interested if this meets the needs of the people
> actively looking for a solution in this space.
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email