- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:01:49 +0200
- To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 11:53:46AM +0200, Stefan Eissing wrote: > > Am 15.07.2021 um 11:29 schrieb Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>: > > > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 10:56:28AM +0200, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen wrote: > >> It is perhaps worth noting that due to QUIC (optionally) having unique > >> connection identifiers, it is feasible to have many connections on the same > >> source port. Therefore that could be a recommendation in cases where some > >> source ports might be blocked. > > > > I think that this is an excellent idea! The simple fact that this is > > being discussed precisely is because the source port serves no purpose > > here other than being compatible with UDP. So basically we could have > > a recommendation that each application preferably uses a single socket > > and source port for outgoing communication. This will also lower the > > stress on source port allocation (and recycling) as well as the need > > for file descriptors. > > Yikes, all QUIC packets will potentially arrive a the same child listener. That's a good point, indeed. But we could suggest that for low network resource usage (i.e. browsers), reusing sockets that proved to work fine is recommended. > Let's go all the way and defined a fixed source port. ^^ :-) Willy
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2021 10:02:12 UTC