Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Apply the 3x amplification-limit to migration too #4264

Merged
merged 21 commits into from Dec 10, 2020
Merged

Apply the 3x amplification-limit to migration too #4264

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
21 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
51423d0
Add a blanket 3x anti-amplification limit
martinthomson Oct 28, 2020
3bf6b2f
Some stuff I missed
martinthomson Oct 28, 2020
97ba8a6
MUST be consistent
martinthomson Oct 28, 2020
59f5a3a
Small corrections
martinthomson Oct 28, 2020
2df832a
Reword the second validation requirement slightly
martinthomson Oct 28, 2020
549564f
Make it clearer
martinthomson Oct 29, 2020
8c0c1f9
Wrap stuff
martinthomson Oct 29, 2020
fb033df
Jana's comments
martinthomson Nov 4, 2020
fb253e9
Merge branch 'master' into migration-amplification
martinthomson Nov 4, 2020
66b7c2a
Merge branch 'master' into migration-amplification
martinthomson Nov 4, 2020
593d552
Reword and use addresses, not paths
martinthomson Nov 4, 2020
4769dbe
Add an error code for when the path fails
martinthomson Nov 5, 2020
3527972
moar
martinthomson Nov 5, 2020
2ffb2ab
Fewer words = good
martinthomson Nov 5, 2020
bbc0711
Merge pull request #4331 from quicwg/no-viable-path
martinthomson Nov 5, 2020
54f48ce
use parentheses for adjunct citations
martinthomson Nov 6, 2020
fae20ab
A section reference is all we really need here.
martinthomson Nov 16, 2020
3e5b0fd
Merge branch 'master' into migration-amplification
martinthomson Nov 16, 2020
8324d82
No-enforcement clause for path validation datagram size
martinthomson Dec 10, 2020
c549aee
gramma
martinthomson Dec 10, 2020
07989a2
Suggestion
martinthomson Dec 10, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 1 addition & 3 deletions draft-ietf-quic-transport.md
View file
Open in desktop
Expand Up @@ -2709,9 +2709,7 @@ might also occur because the client's access network used a different NAT
binding for the server's preferred address.

Servers SHOULD initiate path validation to the client's new address upon
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This entire paragraph doesn't seem very specific to "Interaction of Client Migration and Preferred Address"

I think it'd be better to reference the section and not put these normative statements here, since they are so general.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Follow-up Q: Is this SHOULD specific to "Interaction of Client Migration and Preferred Address" or more general? It seems more general, but I don't have a strong opinion.

receiving a probe packet from a different address. Before the client address
is validated, servers MUST NOT send to the address more than three times the
number of bytes that have been received; see {{address-validation}}.
receiving a probe packet from a different address; see {{address-validation}}.

A client that migrates to a new address SHOULD use a preferred address from the
same address family for the server.
Expand Down