Re: [tsvwg] UDP source ports for HTTP/3 and QUIC

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Fri, 23 July 2021 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110003A1751 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 19:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4mAZ5Z289p_k for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 19:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.19.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238903A174F for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 19:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Gorrys-13-Work.lan (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 963011B00288; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 03:01:46 +0100 (BST)
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, tsvwg@ietf.org
References: <3985895D-D420-4995-831E-332E33693B79@mnot.net> <CF409524-96F3-412A-A8DB-E4EFFDD9F4E7@mnot.net> <E62515E7-38FD-4197-8CF0-2D196FB6D6C4@strayalpha.com> <16CD883B-9561-41A5-97E0-43EF3618333C@mnot.net> <8235BE77-7849-49A3-A709-EB32EB039982@strayalpha.com> <AA5B1FC1-E0E8-488F-AE2E-F21696AD0A06@akamai.com> <MN2PR19MB4045E5063CE13DDE39D5BE8683E29@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <9263482C-2E0A-46F0-9351-B63C0E3B53E0@strayalpha.com> <MN2PR19MB40450ACCE13E4A335FF929A483E49@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <694559d2-c0ac-80f2-7336-950bf6384a9d@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <MN2PR19MB40454F6D65F78FD618C691E283E49@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <79d01f33-bc20-fce6-b49d-7c7cd67bea70@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <61DC2F78-5075-4BD9-A54D-D13BCB826539@mnot.net>
Message-ID: <daed0712-2828-2248-c31f-53ce336f4762@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 03:01:34 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <61DC2F78-5075-4BD9-A54D-D13BCB826539@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/zyhD48i4PdH6lN_BIOv8XLXiWb0>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] UDP source ports for HTTP/3 and QUIC
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 02:02:45 -0000

On 23/07/2021 00:21, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Hi Gorry,
>
>> On 23 Jul 2021, at 7:14 am, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Am I understanding this about a client choosing source ports, and this client runs out of ephemeral ports (at least within the time it can reuse closed ports). I can see that servers can have lots of clients, but what is the use-case for a QUIC client to have that many open UDP ports?
> Please see my original mail in its entirety. There are two scenarios of note:
>
> 1) A client implementation asks the OS for a port and uses whatever it's given. Because of the port allocation practices of some implementations, the chosen port can be one of those we're talking about (although that's mostly for those > 1024). While AFAIK some implementations will try to allocate an ephemeral port number first (in the IETF definition), some will not, AIUI.
>
> 2) A client is behind a NAT/CGNAT that chooses a different source port, again within one of these ranges.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Thanks Mark

- sorry for making you say this again, I was thrown by the context of QUIC.

So, probably for (2) I think RFC4787 (BCP: 127), Section 4.2.is the 
relevant reference, and that current NATs have different policies, .....

I think I now understand the use-case.

Gorry