IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Going STEK-less with QUIC?

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Wed, 28 July 2021 01:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
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 1C1D33A1548 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=fShNkcgB; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=pLSHjocz
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 kfw5vTjB3Lyz for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 169E33A1547 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54BA5C0043 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 21:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap41 ([10.202.2.91]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 21:28:51 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=SCItjkE9sLKmek8YF6jLfwquNjCratb sokJH5H44xy4=; b=fShNkcgBICfdlBLNK7iZpStKCT7axqhtzzelJVtGPwpazrm ZCHZkvE/QXZLzjp4msWXydugvngwwXV9oBvX6zMqEJswuvl1vvRhZqd8FNFw2gad 1sBCGca4dDbGHJq88pp7YTAoF/EmoVAEFPSr8RxCPGmdBJhqO2dtF7x6mK+CDxO5 OYM/YGEohsU3USBL+AhbXgswFtNVbetJFZaMrEqYSA6opyBdKage7DfeE+q6nzlu rgpfUbIfGCBlqmhv31AicDK3XrfUdRy0TeLnOa79VgdDvlFqgCU+3CJrn7s3MfKe Re77goe1EclrfPn0I1rCa5lgH4YgphCsnN1ekeQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=SCItjk E9sLKmek8YF6jLfwquNjCratbsokJH5H44xy4=; b=pLSHjoczFYCZXgRZMQO8su 6dJeLa6pao2gj9x+MDMKuj/OlyGRWYRoqv+haU43WHVtWPY8n8dphzkUuVJMLgW8 nLaMOtTKnQ6OFG/F2G4EK4Z6ujPJ5cCW14baQp/gV1urWGWmyYnUAByiTL4E4r/i ReBYtEiKp0EFX0ZAGPueXjHggijEai2NYV+vPJOPLqmsPuN+jjWJetXB2rifySqT 2YXwPlqhgg+u8dnPmUegOKpVNYCEuHBW3MagDIwYaHiz9+g9ws+9Ad6Jk0vIEXCJ Mzh/i9wy7RejQvEda+KvZcjJWl5AEfRVGH9CueGqwyn5kMsix6FN21ulpunMWp5w ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:07IAYV30lj6khfZvHT-Fx2yOMAU_XvIJRItYpFNroDlU3ItJQCdpPA> <xme:07IAYcG1g3nIlRuI1eU4Epk3YOSXOg7juxx1ufx3X_lKwOitYc9UwavFH2r6Nuhd9 WHwNHMvFjveS6MU9mY>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrgeekgdefgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohif vghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeetueeikedtkeelfeekve fhkeffvedvvefgkefgleeugfdvjeejgeffieegtdejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgep tdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:07IAYV4hrPWNUZgFjHCbaJnLunDwzJeFu6dvyhZ0k24Pvh6leKP0lQ> <xmx:07IAYS0V0MswH2THgAym3iFJKGs8eWfGoH3ZzhkIsFbAv2eoWYSBZA> <xmx:07IAYYE2X4LtxgsUVW66VdwMQinJUX-A7VtjYYPqKTqCCREd5S7Ulg> <xmx:07IAYcSt_HOSsNy-sQMQZnzPiPnILeCgI6Ep0TLBQYb86d2FO2ySCw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id A1E7F3C0471; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 21:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-545-g7a4eea542e-fm-20210727.001-g7a4eea54
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <b89f83f8-951d-4407-a12c-9d9e85e46fe0@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANatvzxBKNf+YdNLPwG=QpZv33o0Mp7uRU+N4JQUpYfbDypQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7265bac0-f54b-0e5b-d5b6-572550809f0f@huitema.net> <CANatvzxBKNf+YdNLPwG=QpZv33o0Mp7uRU+N4JQUpYfbDypQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:28:36 +1000
From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: quic@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Going STEK-less with QUIC?
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/iNN5tKvXZbFgm0XmlE8aSIujMc8>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 01:28:58 -0000

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021, at 09:02, Kazuho Oku wrote:
> [...] I think the same result can be achieved in practice 
> by designing a format of NEW_TOKEN tokens that is to be shared by the 
> load balancer and the server. That token would contain the server-id. 
> When the load balancer receives an Initial packet conveying such a 
> token, it can parse the server-id contained in that token, and forward 
> the packet to the specified backend.

Yep, that would work.  And the load balancer might choose not to honour the server selection choice if that instance was looking a little overloaded.

In other words, no standard needed in all cases, but maybe another something for QUIC-LB to manage.

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status