On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Fossati, Thomas (Nokia -
GB/Cambridge, UK) wrote:
> This is quite similar to the trial and error / heuristic that I was
> mentioning in [1].
You didn't mention 5-tuples. And it isn't trial and error: you use
5-tuple as your primary key and use connection ID to la
On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 06:43 +, Fossati, Thomas (Nokia -
GB/Cambridge, UK) wrote:
> Hi Nikos,
>
> On 13/10/2017, 07:21, "TLS on behalf of Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos" -boun...@ietf.org on behalf of n...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Another worrying feature is that the client can make the server
> > send
This makes me think about if this is feasible/desirable to use
connection id to do load balancing.
I think about use cases where you have a cluster of server behind only
one IP address. Often traffic will be load balanced by IP.
But with UDP and Nat environment, the IP can change.
Thx to CID,
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Simon Bernard
wrote:
> This makes me think about if this is feasible/desirable to use connection
> id to do load balancing.
>
> I think about use cases where you have a cluster of server behind only one
> IP address. Often traffic will be load balanced by IP.
> Bu
On 10/02/2017 03:31 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> We are about to publish draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00. The TLS
> extension defined in this I-D takes into account what we heard from the
> discussion regarding TLS visibility and draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13-00
> in Prague. Specifically, i
I agree with "everyone"; it seems like these fall into what "not
recommended" is intended to encompass. I don't have a preference for
whether there's an extra annotation about IoT usage.
-Ben
On 10/09/2017 06:05 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
> Anybody else has thoughts on this?
>
> spt
>
>> On Oct 3, 2
