Scope of disable_active_migration #3670
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ianswett
approved these changes
May 19, 2020
martinthomson
added
the
design
Co-authored-by: ianswett <ianswett@users.noreply.github.com>
kazuho
approved these changes
May 21, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the changes.
I like @martinthomson's editorial improvements, but even without them, I think we are ready.
Co-authored-by: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
janaiyengar
approved these changes
May 26, 2020
erickinnear
approved these changes
Jun 2, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Following on @janaiyengar's insight that disable_active_migration is a property of an address, not a peer, we simply need to say which address the TP applies to.
This PR fixes #3608 by scoping the definition of disable_active_migration to the handshake address only. This means that existing clients remain fully compliant, albeit slightly more conservative than necessary.
While I find @kazuho's argument convincing that a server capable of using SPA is highly unlikely to be unable to handle migration, it would be trivial for a future extension to define an additional transport parameter carrying two bits that disable active migration for those addresses as well.