Re: UDP source ports for HTTP/3 and QUIC

Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> Thu, 15 July 2021 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ximaera@gmail.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 C9DEC3A109A for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=gmail.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 V1Xmzq9h2fLH for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62d.google.com (mail-ej1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62d]) (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 3F6063A1093 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id bu12so11116237ejb.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MriqonG/aRE0ZrxbDJ5MgHF0TjcLOjSpUTu/MsPIpsk=; b=NbtOiuFwgins8rhNI89X7oNWUebMnqAMB62999JPnKONSt2fkXbScmW8tiEiVKnaAt QckSFWkFLwg0ICSuUAKkuZgfUVUPs2aTrTNoHCzQhQbJfJtA9/4clXu2qdfSDlGsegqi qMX5ExRt5tA/fBrKzbIfZvVYfnByVj6llvL4ozIGPTnVqSSp3KlEiVl7o4Ynnesy2DTj Q0LtfcOnM9KtOFboCK74Y2shi3axSJv4zmb7WE+oplY6ulcH2WnginAWLuz1+GUKtigk cXMSW8DOaH56QBeDfdbTAzpZaNxOOeLt7YApOzvms+1vVS4eSCthW5dQQ4wbnSchwcea EYog==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MriqonG/aRE0ZrxbDJ5MgHF0TjcLOjSpUTu/MsPIpsk=; b=LR/CUVLfdOWGTyoe9NT2RptsI28nLfc/O6ERl8F/i9CItm4dWRrd8UHyjTnPPZnTPW DDVhpy/kQ9PXLtLtpnDy/P3JXMKwReI4Q41ylWlvit5M1fbZcM6ol/sSE0BFsVYwHJ8l AMfy6fXFk1SoZYv9kZ2CQVsSWibockl9UINxTh96TxVTJQ2e5hQRboMix1VO1W2mwhwP 5AaUo6ieW9wEPJq8OehsXql0VMfKj8vWZ+ItjJyv9CaMUMq0AOwYNu3dH1ZonZWQZ3e7 Sh36DFm8i4MKJR90x5ee1wOA7HdNWeQfR8bv912ZfYLrMwtCnjqmWBpQYmDCBpP8dOrk 5Ffg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531q8VaQoODIijQ5gnpCvSa5YbgAnEYGm1DvJX4yghxRFTqZUHTk k1cq2p7If+h77UyI85eK9kZNJ4ggdQFK0ptOPuA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxH6LbMkP5Kmrfn/P/8I7+xgtN/id3zoRKEHnLenOUJhaVTPJpdIBZ96wa8aidaIwDw+UfsLmNQ7FUM62xmsLg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c20d:: with SMTP id d13mr6952526ejz.259.1626375815770; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3985895D-D420-4995-831E-332E33693B79@mnot.net> <6F79A78A-1DF8-4A48-9B7F-334B309C9C26@gmail.com> <CALZ3u+bZ22N3iHkheK9hQ0qd5eGwuvTbQXL5M7n13uP+X=QM1Q@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR00MB0857BC7DAEE2BDC12BE4A0C1B3129@DM6PR00MB0857.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR00MB0857BC7DAEE2BDC12BE4A0C1B3129@DM6PR00MB0857.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
From: Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 22:03:22 +0300
Message-ID: <CALZ3u+Z9MoTajVrLtYunGbujJHQ9Oto_uid0LBYWXk-iUm0JFw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: UDP source ports for HTTP/3 and QUIC
To: Nick Banks <nibanks@microsoft.com>
Cc: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c5373505c72e2083"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/uhPEhAWmO6qbRFmMvjBMZfYp-SA>
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: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 19:03:40 -0000

Peace,

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 4:40 PM Nick Banks <nibanks@microsoft.com> wrote:

> You should definitely not make any assumptions around having unique source
> ports for QUIC connections.
>

Ephemeral port randomization-based traffic balancing is not what I assume,
it's what, maybe, half the Internet connectivity providers do for a
decade.  RFC 6438 kinda sums it up, and I urge you to read it.

To distribute the load across multiple paths, an Internet router needs an
entropy source providing a random integer stable for a connection (if you
want to avoid delays and retries), generally different for different
connections (if you want to avoid seeing all the connections congested on a
single paths), available for reading in every packet.  Now, that's the
ephemeral source port.

Compared to a protocol X which ditches the ephemeral port, TCP would
probably work faster and more reliable along a lot of the network paths,
because it won't be always taking paths already congested by the protocol X.

That, of course, assumes the protocol X is popular. Many VPN protocols also
suffer from that but their general (negligible) Internet-scale adoption
state kinda saves the day.  For the HTTP protocol that would be different.

This doesn't necessarily mean all connections would be on the same source
> port, but only a few ports might be used for all connections.
>

*That* *might* work but the fixed source port won't.

--
Töma

>