Thanks for clarifying Eric, On Fri, Oct 30, 2020, at 09:07, Eric Kinnear wrote: > Client is fetching a decently large web resource from a server over > QUIC. NAT rebinds and so the server sees un-padded QUIC packets > arriving on a different port.
Ah, so I had in my mind that the server would be able to treat the new address as validated if only the port changed. Then it wouldn't be obligated to perform address validation or limit its sending. This is not what the draft says. The same-port exception only applies to the congestion controller. (https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-transport.html#section-9.4-2) I guess that my implementation will be off-spec in this regard. I have no intention of splitting the logic so that a port rebinding retains congestion control and RTT state, but not address validation state. The question then is whether this is worth permitting in the spec. ?
