Re: Differentiate between GQUIC and QUIC packets

Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> Tue, 01 August 2017 12:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ianswett@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 DCEDB131D08 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 05:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 bz3iNwnA2O1Z for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 05:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (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 217F8126BF3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 05:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l82so8761926ywc.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 05:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
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=uo+J6Ps6Mc8GMBLOavs+4cP7ZFBturmVuG+rOyFVGZs=; b=GCfdpbazz8dInJPMvoZ4bg0pDcjU4N/8eigZC0VfRJCURtIYjPPdfdH96aSjgneAOf YpXaXtyRCsginuUhO5GaMgqKF1+McJqav7MkvfxzDUE/Y+OEQtr6riR0xnOSvISw7l/D QZXDU7Cscc+7IoSk+VosRv2eAStbs/YcD/4mAbUq+DPRhXiKXD+UIVjXE9UeT1pO7KQZ 1W+G58Jrmw8Bhhw2f+khu0vRKPA7cVP21SRrrFkQRJZ2wy5QeAglReVnyfZ9D2npD6gO gwbqL0RnfROdMpZZdUXSUKCkfkb4kOssgDGtsKBwm/bxx7Ks7/s+HlzwVzeDHpDOoEeQ j/Mw==
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=uo+J6Ps6Mc8GMBLOavs+4cP7ZFBturmVuG+rOyFVGZs=; b=kbqcs3iHqAhIs9S9qaP52Ycl/96N8RmXPC0q2gS/KA/tbNZXmQq+LVaB88aRr7Xt8y rMLh28MyGM61E15ARz3KYIIThp6jBBE21tKcWIjjc7dGQUqDSy90XtAI3M3RnE8o1AU0 BA6P6bVWZTlyHnFAmDX8Gs+XxqMnLXgU00nbT8HPusqyr5QX+83udBsXHrp10oytaCzD V+cC9+lZFtW6ajufBukg98HwtX4NMuhjLSRCZtwIAYUYuyX2voNUGSYyzdN5OeezjiHD ZDeerM8DvZIjN95Lw8sZMiBx8kWYieDgA2TCrSdJDpYEusdVLfofGNuqk+IoVOCiSfxi xMJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1110ckqKVr44l+kiLBpUxig46EZAC9iuX4RVGguaKo+e/D1mMNqC bAJo1LQI178lCXID9QAzcX25jYAh1kCE
X-Received: by 10.37.65.201 with SMTP id o192mr15808809yba.264.1501590692058; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 05:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.217.137 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 05:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170801032805.GA29894@ubuntu-dmitri>
References: <20170801032502.GA28788@ubuntu-dmitri> <20170801032805.GA29894@ubuntu-dmitri>
From: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:31:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcm_gNQFEmws7wX5vfKCZ4QHGTHRq=Y4GxO09GxjW66dRPRig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Differentiate between GQUIC and QUIC packets
To: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c02d20cce11d0555b05334"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/rf6zz1Jstcc5osVliUlSe-hdDIo>
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, 01 Aug 2017 12:31:35 -0000

Good question.  The plan is for Google to support both during a transition
period and the general approach is similar to what you outlined above.  The
key to resolving the ambiguity is that gQUIC always requires a connection
ID from the client to the server, and the intent is to continue to require
that for IETF QUIC.  Google's server uses the connection ID to lookup the
connection, so I believe we'd just discard an incoming packet with no
connection ID.

On the client side, it knows what version is being spoken, so there's no
ambiguity.

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Dmitri Tikhonov <
dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:25:02PM -0400, Dmitri Tikhonov wrote:
> > 1) GQUIC vs QUIC long-header format packet
> >
> >     This is straightforward: the first byte in GQUIC must be zero,
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >     whereas in QUIC's long-header format packet it is set to one.
>
> This should read "the high bit of the first byte" -- sorry about
> that.
>
>   - Dmitri.
>
>