Original text:
Servers MUST drop incoming packets under all other circumstances.  5.3. A QUIC connection is a stateful interaction between a client and

Reviewer comments:
Addresses . I'm flexible on wording and where exactly it lives in the document. I put it in Security Considerations.
I just completely rearranged the new section based on your input. See how it reads now. Editors, I don't seem to have permission to request review. Can someone add NAME
Unfortunately, some of the reviews are hidden as obsolete. I want to respond to this by NAME about disablemigration I tried to not recommend anything here except to send disablemigration. The client is going to decide what to do with regard to NAT rebinding. If wired, I probably send more PINGs or something. If wireless, maybe not. If I'm quite sure I'm not behind a NAT, I probably do nothing. There's nothing normative here but to send the TP, so if people hate this I can just delete the explanation.
I moved the whole thing to Section 5 as NAME suggested. I've taken most of the other suggestions, but am not sure if the intro needs to change, or what exactly people don't like about the disable_migration explanatory text.
I'm actually fine with this. We were considering keep alives on the server side when we can't support migration (or NAT rebinding) based on the current infrastructure. So having the spec suggest keep alives to the client would be better. It would allow the client to choose if it would prefer keep alives or just to close the connection.
After taking all suggestions from NAME I simply deleted the explanatory text about sending disablemigration. I didn't see the stuff about NAT rebinding as prescriptive or changing the semantics, but it's non-normative, clients are gonna do what they gonna do, and it's not worth holding up the rest of this over. If people want to add NAT rebinding considerations to disablemigration we can fight that out in another issue.
FWIW, we have a number of cases when the destination IP and port + CID would route correctly, but the original IP(being anycast) would not always route correctly. It's likely there are millions of connections to the destination IP being migrated to, but yes it's a smaller number than the anycast IP.
So NAME do you want new or revised language here, or will the other issue address the linkability stuff? I would like to close this out if it's good enough.
Given how hard this has been to get right, I want NAME to take a look. But I'm happy with this.
A reminder for NAME to either take a look or say that this is OK to proceed without another review.
I could not stand leaving this unmerged any longer. Anyone with more comments can make a new PR. Thanks to everyone who helped out here.
The transport draft talks about QUIC being resilient to NAT rebindings. However, if a QUIC server is behind an L3 load balancer which simply routes based on 5-tuple, then connections to this server will (likely) not survive rebinding. I couldn't find any language which addressed whether such a deployment was "OK" or not. I think that since this load balance does not support NAT binding resilience, it is implicitly "bad" according to the draft, but others might disagree. In any case, I think there should be text to address this. Note, if the server advertised a preferredaddress which routed around the load balancer, and if clients were required to use this address, then that could obviously work. But preferredaddress support is a SHOULD, not a MUST.
We did discuss this issue. Use of empty connection IDs and demultiplexing based on source addresses. The conclusion there was that this was OK: people could do that, as long as it was clear that what they were getting was not different than TCP. That is, we made it clear that if you don't use the identifiers that you control (your addresses, the connection ID), then you accept that you can't handle migration at all and connections will drop (well, unless you do something like trial decryption, which has some obvious scaling issues). The outcome of that discussion was captured in . Assuming that Ryan finds this answer satisfactory (and I haven't missed anything), then I suggest we just close this as a duplicate of .
I don't think this captures Ryan's concern: when the server is using a non-zero CID and also is behind 4-tuple routing. I think he's looking for a section of text to coherently describe what you have to do here: send either disablemigration or preferredaddress; or forward packets between servers; or either don't use a common stateless_reset key, or put client address/port in the reset token. This is sort of ops-drafty but there real requirements on servers to behave in a secure way. I think someone with full command of the transport draft would figure this out, but it is not clearly stated anywhere.
I agree with Martin Duke and the language he suggests makes sense to me.
This does feel a bit ops-drafty to me, but I'd be happy to review a PR.
I'm sure that this is now basically unrecognizable...Some more suggestions, but overall this LG

Revised text:
Servers MUST drop incoming packets under all other circumstances. <ins> 5.2.3. A server deployment could load balance among servers using only source and destination IP addresses and ports.  Changes to the client's IP address or port could result in packets being forwarded to the wrong server.  Such a server deployment could use one of the following methods for connection continuity when a client's address changes. Servers could use an out-of-band mechanism to forward packets to the correct server based on Connection ID. If servers can use other dedicated server IP addresses or ports than the one that the client initially connects to, they could use the preferred_address transport parameter to request that clients move connections to these dedicated addresses.  Note that clients could choose not to use the preferred address. A server in a deployment that does not implement a solution to maintain connection continuity during connection migration SHOULD disallow migration using the disable_active_migration transport parameter. Server deployments that use this simple form of load balancing MUST avoid the creation of a stateless reset oracle; see reset-oracle. </ins> 5.3. A QUIC connection is a stateful interaction between a client and