Client A -> Server B. Multiple connections (not streams)

[timprepscius]

I am attempting to have client A make multiple connections (not streams) to server B, while using the same socket.

Using the same localEndPoint to create multiple connections:

Snip:

	if (QUIC_FAILED(
		Status =
			quic->ConnectionOpen(
				*registration,
				clientConnectionCallback,
				connectionCallbackData,
				&connection->connection_)
			)
		)
	{
		quic_printf("ConnectionOpen failed, 0x%x!\n", Status);
		goto Error;
	}
	
	if (QUIC_FAILED(
			Status = quic->SetParam(
				connection->connection_,
				QUIC_PARAM_LEVEL_CONNECTION,
				QUIC_PARAM_CONN_LOCAL_ADDRESS,
				sizeof(localEndpoint),
				&localEndpoint
			)
		)
	)
	{
		quic_printf("SetParam(QUIC_PARAM_CONN_LOCAL_ADDRESS) failed, 0x%x!\n", Status);
		goto Error;
	}
	
	if (QUIC_FAILED(
			Status = quic->SetParam(
				connection->connection_,
				QUIC_PARAM_LEVEL_CONNECTION,
				QUIC_PARAM_CONN_SHARE_UDP_BINDING,
				sizeof(Opt),
				&Opt
			)
		)
	)
	{
		quic_printf("SetParam(QUIC_PARAM_CONN_SHARE_UDP_BINDING) failed, 0x%x!\n", Status);
		goto Error;
	}
	
	if (QUIC_FAILED(
			Status = quic->ConnectionStart(
				connection->connection_,
				*clientConfiguration,
				QUIC_ADDRESS_FAMILY_UNSPEC,
				remoteIP.c_str(),
				remotePort
			)
		)
	)
	{
		quic_printf("ConnectionStart failed, 0x%x!\n", Status);
		goto Error;
	}

Soon after ConnectionStart I receive an "in use" error:

    case QUIC_CONNECTION_EVENT_SHUTDOWN_INITIATED_BY_TRANSPORT:
    {
		xLogDebug(logOfThis(self_) << logVar(strong(callbackData->ptr).ptr()) << logVar(QUIC_CONNECTION_EVENT_SHUTDOWN_INITIATED_BY_TRANSPORT));
		
		shutdownConnection_(connection, callbackData);
	} break;

Should I be able to do this?

Must I use multiple streams for the same connection, instead of one stream for each of multiple connections
using same socket A to connect to server B.

[timprepscius]

Wait, I may have just misunderstood the QuicAddrFromString vs QuicAddrToString

[nibanks]

Yes, there is a significant performance difference. I don't remember all the details, but there is a difference.

[timprepscius]

Huh, interesting. That's really problematic. for my use case.

[nibanks]

I've opened #1750 to track this issue.

[nibanks]

@timprepscius I have created #1751 which at least fixes the problem for Linux, but as I indicated, it's not currently supported on Window. Are you using Windows or Linux?

[maolson-msft]

[to confirm, yes, two connected sockets with the same local port will not work properly in Windows.]