Closed yangfurong closed 9 months ago
When a server receives a non-probing frame it needs to imitate path validation, similar as it has to validate the path if a probing frame is received. Does this clarify your question?
This issue is related to #261 and #188. If I understand the situation correctly, the consensus is that utilizing PATH_CHALLENGE as a definitive indicator is usually a valid approach. However, we must also address cases where a packet arrives with both a new connection identifier (CID) and a new 4-tuple, but is devoid of a PATH_CHALLENGE. Disregarding such a packet is inappropriate; instead, we should regard it as initiating a new path. In circumstances where both NAT re-binding and CID rotation occur simultaneously, the server is advised to perform path validation for both the original and new paths. This dual validation process may also provide a solution for the issue described in figure 3 of #273 .
OK. I get it.
According to 4.1 of the new draft, a "non-probing" packet's reception on a new path should be treated as a path initiation attempt.
What does it actually mean?
Previously, servers only create new paths if they receive packets with PATH_CHALLENGE on a new 4-tuple. Does this mean that servers should now create new paths as long as they receive "non-probing" packets on new 4-tuples?