Skip to content

Robust port-rebinding check#426

Open
tatsuhiro-t wants to merge 2 commits intoquic-interop:masterfrom
tatsuhiro-t:robust-port-rebinding-check
Open

Robust port-rebinding check#426
tatsuhiro-t wants to merge 2 commits intoquic-interop:masterfrom
tatsuhiro-t:robust-port-rebinding-check

Conversation

@tatsuhiro-t
Copy link
Contributor

RFC does not require PATH_CHALLENGE frame in a first packet to new path. Instead of requiring it, verify that PATH_CHALLENGE frame is sent to new path before a packet containing non-probing packet is sent. PATH_CHALLENGE can be in a same packet that contains non-probing frame.

Fixes #424

RFC does not require PATH_CHALLENGE frame in a first packet to new
path.  Instead of requiring it, verify that PATH_CHALLENGE frame is
sent to new path before a packet containing non-probing packet is
sent.  PATH_CHALLENGE can be in a same packet that contains
non-probing frame.
Because a packet that contains PATH_CHALLENGE is subject to pacing, an
endpoint might not be able to send it because of pacer.  Meanwhile,
ACK only packet can be sent without pacing limitation as per RFC 9002,
section 7.7.  This means that non-probing ACK only packet may be sent
before sending a packet that contains PATH_CHALLENGE.  To deal with
this situation, ignore ACK only packet when detecting non-probing
packet in rebind-port test.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Server is not required to send PATH_CHALLENGE in response to a packet on new path.

1 participant

Comments