DCCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses
draft-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp-11
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Markus Amend , Anna Brunstrom , Andreas Kassler , Veselin Rakocevic , Stephen Johnson | ||
| Last updated | 2023-10-12 (Latest revision 2023-07-26) | ||
| Replaces | draft-amend-tsvwg-multipath-dccp | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | Gorry Fairhurst | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk |
draft-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp-11
Transport Area Working Group M. Amend, Ed.
Internet-Draft DT
Intended status: Standards Track A. Brunstrom
Expires: 14 April 2024 A. Kassler
Karlstad University
V. Rakocevic
City University of London
S. Johnson
BT
12 October 2023
DCCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses
draft-ietf-tsvwg-multipath-dccp-11
Abstract
DCCP communications as defined in [RFC4340] are restricted to a
single path per connection, yet multiple paths often exist between
peers. The simultaneous use of available multiple paths for a DCCP
session could improve resource usage within the network and, thus,
improve user experience through higher throughput and improved
resilience to network failures. Use cases for a Multipath DCCP (MP-
DCCP) are mobile devices (e.g., handsets, vehicles) and residential
home gateways simultaneously connected to distinct networks as, e.g.,
a cellular and a Wireless Local Area (WLAN) networks or a cellular
and a fixed access networks. Compared to existing multipath
protocols, such as MPTCP, MP-DCCP provides specific support for non-
TCP user traffic (e.g., UDP or plain IP). More details on potential
use cases are provided in [multipath-dccp.org], [IETF115.Slides], and
[MP-DCCP.Paper]. All these use cases profit from an Open Source
Linux reference implementation provided under [multipath-dccp.org].
This document specifies a set of extensions to DCCP to support
multipath operations. Multipath DCCP provides the ability to
simultaneously use multiple paths between peers. The protocol offers
the same type of service to applications as DCCP and it provides the
components necessary to establish and use multiple DCCP flows across
different paths simultaneously.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Multipath DCCP in the Networking Stack . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Operation Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. MP-DCCP Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. MP-DCCP Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Multipath Capable Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Multipath Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. MP_CONFIRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2. MP_JOIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.3. MP_FAST_CLOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.4. MP_KEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.5. MP_SEQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.6. MP_HMAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2.7. MP_RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.8. MP_ADDADDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2.9. MP_REMOVEADDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.10. MP_PRIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.11. MP_CLOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
4.2.12. Experimental MP-DCCP Sub-Option MP_EXP for private
use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.3. MP-DCCP Handshaking Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.4. Address knowledge exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.4.1. Advertising a new path (MP_ADDADDR) . . . . . . . . . 30
4.4.2. Removing a path (MP_REMOVEADDR) . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.5. Close a MP-DCCP connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.6. Fallback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.7. Congestion Control Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.8. Maximum Packet Size Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.9. Path usage strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.9.1. Path mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.9.2. Concurrent path usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6. Interactions with Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix A. Differences from Multipath TCP . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1. Introduction
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340] is a transport
protocol that provides bidirectional unicast connections of
congestion-controlled unreliable datagrams. DCCP communications are
restricted to one single path. Multipath DCCP (MP-DCCP) provides a
set of extensions to DCCP to enable a DCCP connection to
simultaneously establish flow across multiple paths. This can be
beneficial to applications that transfer large amounts of data, by
utilizing the capacity/connectivity offered by multiple paths. In
addition, the multipath extensions enable to tradeoff timeliness and
reliability, which is important for low-latency applications that do
not require guaranteed delivery services, such as Audio/Video
streaming.
MP-DCCP was first suggested in the context of the 3GPP work on 5G
multi-access solutions [I-D.amend-tsvwg-multipath-framework-mpdccp]
and for hybrid access networks [I-D.lhwxz-hybrid-access-network-archi
tecture][I-D.muley-network-based-bonding-hybrid-access], where MP-
DCCP can be applied for load-balancing, seamless session handover,
and bandwidth aggregation (referred to as Access Traffic Steering,
Switching, and Splitting (ATSSS) in the 3GPP terminology [TS23.501]).
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
This document specifies a set of protocol changes that add multipath
support to DCCP; specifically, support for signaling and setting up
multiple paths (a.k.a, "subflows"), managing these subflows,
reordering of data, and termination of sessions.
DCCP, as stated in [RFC4340] does not provide reliable and ordered
delivery. Consequently, multiple application subflows may be
multiplexed over a single DCCP connection with no inherent
performance penalty for application subflows that do not require in-
ordered delivery. DCCP does not provide built-in support for those
multiple application subflows.
Encapsulation for DCCP in UDP is defined in [RFC6773].
[I-D.amend-tsvwg-multipath-framework-mpdccp] proposes a lightweight
encapsulation for DCCP flow headers appropriate for unreliable IP
traffic in terms of UDP and other non-TCP packets in comparison to
MPTCP. This is not considered in the present specification.
1.1. Multipath DCCP in the Networking Stack
MP-DCCP provides a set of features to DCCP; Figure 1 illustrates this
layering. It operates at the transport layer and can be used as a
transparent for both higher and lower layers. It is designed to be
used by applications in the same way as DCCP with no changes to the
application itself.
+-------------------------------+
| Application |
+---------------+ +-------------------------------+
| Application | | MP-DCCP |
+---------------+ + - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - +
| DCCP | |Subflow (DCCP) |Subflow (DCCP) |
+---------------+ +-------------------------------+
| IP | | IP | IP |
+---------------+ +-------------------------------+
Figure 1: Comparison of Standard DCCP and MP-DCCP Protocol Stacks
1.2. Terminology
This document uses terms that are either specific for multipath
transport or are defined in the context of MP-DCCP, similar to
[RFC8684], as follows:
Path: A sequence of links between a sender and a receiver, defined in
this context by a 4-tuple of source and destination address/ port
pairs.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
(MP-DCCP) Connection: A set of one or more subflows, over which an
application can communicate between two hosts. The MP-DCCP
connection is exposed as single DCCP socket to the application.
Token: A locally unique identifier given to a multipath connection by
a host. May also be referred to as a "Connection ID".
Host: An end host operating an MP-DCCP implementation, and either
initiating or accepting an MP-DCCP connection.
SubFlow: A subflow refers to a DCCP flows transmitted using a
specific path (4-tuple of source and destination address/port pairs)
that forms one of the multipath flows used by a single connection.
In addition to these terms, within the framework of MP-DCCP the
interpretation of, and effect on, regular single-path DCCP semantics
is discussed in Section 4.
The term SubFlow is not to be confused with an "application sub-
flows" mentioned in Section 17.2 of [RFC4340]. Application subflows
are differentiated by source and destination port per application as,
for example, enabled by Service Codes introduced to DCCP in
[RFC5595], and those application subflows can be multiplexed over a
single DCCP connection. For the sake of consistency, this
specification assumes a single application is served by a DCCP
connection, as shown in Figure 1. This ought to not impact DCCP
operation on each single path as noted in (Section 2.4 of [RFC5595]).
Application subflows can co-exist with MP-DCCP operation as specified
in this document.
2. Operation Overview
DCCP (Section 17.2 of [RFC4340]) allows multiple application subflows
to be multiplexed over a single DCCP connection with potentially same
performance. However, DCCP does not provide built-in support for
managing multiple subflows within one DCCP connection. Various
congestion control mechanisms have been specified to optimize DCCP
performance for specific traffic types in terms of profiles denoted
by a Congestion Control IDentifier (CCID).
The extension of DCCP for Multipath-DCCP (MP-DCCP) is described in
detail in Section 4.
At a high level of the MP-DCCP operation, the data stream from a DCCP
application is split by MP-DCCP operation into one or more subflows
which can be transmitted via different also physically isolated
paths. The corresponding control information allows the receiver to
optionally re-assemble and deliver the received data in the
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
originally transmitted order to the recipient application. This may
be necessary because DCCP does not guarantee in-order delivery. The
details of the transmission scheduling mechanism and optional
reordering mechanism are up to the sender and receiver, respectively,
and are outside the scope of this document.
The following sections define MP-DCCP behavior in detail.
A Multipath DCCP connection provides a bidirectional connection of
datagrams between two hosts exchanging data using in DCCP. It does
not require any change to the applications. Multipath DCCP enables
the hosts to use multiples paths with different IP addresses to
transport the packets of an MP-DCCP connection. MP-DCCP manages the
request, set-up, authentication, prioritization, modification, and
removal of the DCCP subflows on different paths as well as the
exchange of performance parameters.
The number of DCCP subflows can vary during the lifetime of a
Multipath DCCP connection. The details of the path management
decisions for when to add or remove subflows are outside the scope of
this document.
The Multipath Capability for MP-DCCP is negotiated with a new DCCP
feature, as specified in Section 4.1. Once negotiated, all
subsequent MP-DCCP operations for that connection are signalled with
a variable length multipath-related option, as described in
Section 4. All MP-DCCP operations are signaled by MP-DCCP suboptions
described in {#MP_OPT}.
2.1. MP-DCCP Concept
Figure 2 provides a general overview of the MP-DCCP working mode,
whose main characteristics are summarized in this section.
Host A Host B
------------------------ ------------------------
Address A1 Address A2 Address B1 Address B2
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
| | | |
| (DCCP subflow setup) | |
|----------------------------------->| |
|<-----------------------------------| |
| | | |
| | (DCCP subflow setup)| |
| |--------------------->| |
| |<---------------------| |
| merge individual DCCP subflows to one MP-DCCP connection
| | | |
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
Figure 2: Example MP-DCCP Usage Scenario
* An MP-DCCP connection begins with a 4-way handshake, between two
hosts as described in Section 4.3. In Figure 2, an MP-DCCP
connection is established between addresses A1 and B1 on Hosts A
and B, respectively. MP-DCCP does not require both peers to have
more than one address.
* When additional paths and corresponding addresses/ports are
available, additional DCCP subflows are created on these paths and
are attached to the existing MP-DCCP session, which continues to
provide a single connection to the applications at both endpoints.
The example illustrates creation of an additional DCCP subflow
between Address A2 on Host A and Address B1 on Host B.
* MP-DCCP identifies multiple paths by the presence of multiple
addresses/ports at hosts. Combinations of these multiple
addresses/ports indicate the additional paths. In the example,
other potential paths that could be set up are A1<->B2 and
A2<->B2. Although this additional subflow is shown as being
initiated from A2, it could alternatively have been initiated from
B1 or B2.
* The discovery and setup of additional subflows is achieved through
a path management method including the logic and details of the
procedures for adding/removing subflows; this document describes
measures to allow a host to initiate new subflows and signal
available addresses between peers. The definition of a path
management method is, however, out of scope of this document and
subject to a corresponding policy and the specifics of the
implementation. If a MP-DCCP peer host limits the maximum number
of paths that can be maintained (e.g., similar to what is
discussed in Section 3.4 of [RFC8041], the creation of new
subflows from that peer host needs to be avoided and incoming
subflow requests terminated.
* MP-DCCP adds connection-level sequence numbers and exchange of
Round-Trip Time (RTT) information to enable optional reordering
features.
* Subflows are terminated in the same way as regular DCCP
connections, as described in ([RFC4340], Section 8.3). The MP-
DCCP connection is terminated by a connection-level DCCP-CloseReq
or DCCP-Close message.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
4. MP-DCCP Protocol
The DCCP protocol feature list ([RFC4340], Section 6.4) is updated by
adding a new Multipath feature with Feature number THIS-FEATURE, as
shown in Table 1.
+==============+===========+======+=============+===============+
| Number | Meaning | Rule | Rec'n Value | Initial Req'd |
+==============+===========+======+=============+===============+
| THIS-FEATURE | Multipath | SP | 0 | N |
| | Capable | | | |
+--------------+-----------+------+-------------+---------------+
Table 1: Multipath Feature
Rec'n Rule: The reconciliation rule used for the feature. SP
indicates the server-priority, NN indicates this is non-
negotiable.
Initial Value: The initial value for the feature. Every feature has
a known initial value.
Req'd: This column is "Y" if and only if every DCCP implementation
MUST understand the feature. If it is "N", then the feature
behaves like an extension, and it is safe to respond to Change
options for the feature with empty Confirm options.
This specification adds a DCCP protocol option as defined in
([RFC4340], Section 5.8) providing a new Multipath related variable-
length option with option type 46, as shown in Table 2.
+======+===============+===========+============+
| Type | Option Length | Meaning | DCCP-Data? |
+======+===============+===========+============+
| 46 | variable | Multipath | Y |
+------+---------------+-----------+------------+
Table 2: Multipath Option Set
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
4.1. Multipath Capable Feature
A DCCP endpoint negotiates the Multipath Capable Feature to determine
whether multipath extensions can be enabled for a DCCP connection.
The Multipath Capable feature (MP_CAPABLE) has feature number THIS-
FEATURE and has a length of one-byte. The leftmost four bits specify
the compatible version of the MP-DCCP implementation (THIS-VER for
this specification). The following four bits are unassigned in
version, THIS-VER. The unassigned bits MUST be set to zero by the
sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-----------+------------+
| THIS-VER | Unassigned |
+-----------+------------+
Figure 3: Format of the Multipath Capable feature
The setting of the MP_CAPABLE feature MUST follow the server-priority
reconciliation rule described in ([RFC4340], Section 6.3.1). This
allows multiple versions to be specified in order of priority.
The negotiation MUST be a part of the initial handshake procedure
described in Section 4.3. No subsequent re-negotiation of the
MP_CAPABLE feature is allowed for the same MP-DCCP connection.
Clients MUST include a Change R option during the initial handshake
request to supply a list of supported MP-DCCP protocol versions,
ordered by preference.
Servers MUST include a Confirm L option in the subsequent response to
agree on an MP-DCCP version to be used from the Client list, followed
by its own supported version(s), ordered by preference. Any subflow
added to an existing MP-DCCP connection MUST use the version
negotiated for the first subflow.
If no agreement is found, the Server MUST reply with an empty Confirm
L option with feature number THIS-FEATURE and no values.
An example of successful version negotiation is shown hereafter:
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
Client Server
------ ------
DCCP-Req + Change R(MP_CAPABLE, 1 0)
----------------------------------->
DCCP-Resp + Confirm L(MP_CAPABLE, 1, 2 1 0)
<-----------------------------------
* agreement on version = 1 *
Figure 4: Example of MP-DCCP support negotiation using MP_CAPABLE
1. The Client indicates support for both MP-DCCP versions 1 and 0,
with a preference for version 1.
2. Server agrees on using MP-DCCP version 1, and supplies its own
preference list.
3. MP-DCCP is then enabled between the Client and Server with
version 1.
If the version negotiation fails or the MP_CAPABLE feature is not
present in the DCCP-Request or DCCP-Response packets of the initial
handshake procedure, the MP-DCCP connection SHOULD fallback to
regular DCCP or MUST close the connection. Further details are
specified in Section 4.6
4.2. Multipath Option
MP-DCCP uses one single option to signal various multipath-related
operations. The format of this option is shown in Figure 5.
1 2 3
01234567 89012345 67890123 45678901 23456789
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00101110| Length | MP_OPT | Value(s) ...
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Type=46
Figure 5: Multipath Option Format
The fields used by the the multipath option are described in Table 3.
MP_OPT refers to an MP-DCCP suboption.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
+======+========+================+================================+
| Type | Option | MP_OPT | Meaning |
| | Length | | |
+======+========+================+================================+
| 46 | var | 0 =MP_CONFIRM | Confirm reception and |
| | | | processing of an MP_OPT option |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
| 46 | 12 | 1 =MP_JOIN | Join path to an existing MP- |
| | | | DCCP connection |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
| 46 | var | 2 | Close an MP-DCCP connection |
| | | =MP_FAST_CLOSE | unconditionally |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
| 46 | var | 3 =MP_KEY | Exchange key material for |
| | | | MP_HMAC |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
| 46 | 9 | 4 =MP_SEQ | Multipath Sequence Number |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
| 46 | 23 | 5 =MP_HMAC | HMA Code for authentication |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
| 46 | 12 | 6 =MP_RTT | Transmit RTT values |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
| 46 | var | 7 =MP_ADDADDR | Advertise additional Address |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
| 46 | 4 | 8 | Remove Address |
| | | =MP_REMOVEADDR | |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
| 46 | 4 | 9 =MP_PRIO | Change Subflow Priority |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
| 46 | var | 10 =MP_CLOSE | Close an MP-DCCP subflow |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
| 46 | TBD | >10 | Reserved for future MP |
| | | | suboptions. |
+------+--------+----------------+--------------------------------+
Table 3: MP_OPT Option Types
Future MP suboptions could be defined in a later version or extension
to this specification.
These operations are largely inspired by the signals defined in
[RFC8684].
4.2.1. MP_CONFIRM
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
1 2 3 4 5
01234567 89012345 67890123 45678901 23456789 01234567 89012345
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00101110| var |00000000| List of confirmations ...
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Type=46 Length MP_OPT=0
Figure 6: Format of the MP_CONFIRM suboption
Some multipath options require confirmation from the remote peer (see
Table 4). Such options will be retransmitted by the sender until a
MP_CONFIRM is received or confirmation of options is identified
outdated. The further processing of the multipath options in the
receiving host is not the subject of MP_CONFIRM.
Multipath suboptions could arrive out-of-order, therefore suboptions
defined in Table 4 MUST be sent in a DCCP datagram with MP_SEQ
Section 4.2.5. This allows a receiver to identify whether suboptions
are associated with obsolete datasets that would otherwise conflict
with newer datasets. In case of MP_ADDADDR or MP_REMOVEADDR the same
dataset is identified based on AddressID, whereas the same dataset
for MP_PRIO is identified by the subflow in use. An outdated
suboption is detected at the receiver if a previous suboption
referring to the same dataset contained a higher sequence number in
the MP_SEQ. AN MP_CONFIRM MAY be generated for suboptions that are
identified as outdated.
Similarly an MP_CONFIRM could arrive out of order. The associated
MP_SEQ received MUST be echoed to ensure that the most recent
suboption is confirmed. This protects from inconsistencies that
could occur, e.g. if three MP_PRIO options are sent one after the
other on one path in order to first set the path priority to 0, then
to 1 and finally to 0 again. Without an associated MP_SEQ, a loss of
the third MP_PRIO option and a loss of the MP_CONFIRM of the second
update and the third update would cause the sender to incorrectly
interpret that the priority value was set to 0 without recognizing
that the receiver has applied priority value 1.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
The length of the MP_CONFIRM option and the path over which the
option is sent depend on the confirmed suboptions and the received
MP_SEQ, which is both copied verbatim and appended as a list of
confirmations. The list is structured by first listing the received
MP_SEQ followed by the confirmed suboption or suboptions. The same
rules apply when suboptions with different MP_SEQs are confirmed at
once. This could happen if a datagram with MP_PRIO and a first
MP_SEQ_1 and another datagram with MP_ADDADDR and a second MP_SEQ_2
are received in short succession. In this case, the structure
described above is concatenated resulting in MP_SEQ_1 + MP_PRIO +
MP_SEQ_2 + MP_ADDADDR.
+======+===============+==================+=========================+
| Type | Option Length | MP_OPT | MP_CONFIRM Sending path |
+======+===============+==================+=========================+
| 46 | var | 7 =MP_ADDADDR | Any available |
+------+---------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| 46 | 4 | 8 | Any available |
| | | =MP_REMOVEADDR | |
+------+---------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| 46 | 4 | 9 =MP_PRIO | Any available |
+------+---------------+------------------+-------------------------+
Table 4: Multipath options requiring confirmation
An example to illustrate the MP-DCCP confirm procedure for the
MP_PRIO option is shown in Figure 7. The host A sends a DCCP-Request
on path A2-B2 with an MP_PRIO option with value 1 and associated
sequence number of 1. Host B replies on the same path in this
instance (but could be any path) with a DCCP-Response containing the
MP_CONFIRM option and a list containing the original sequence number
(1) together with the associated option (MP_PRIO)
Host A Host B
------------------------ ------------------------
Address A1 Address A2 Address B1 Address B2
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
| | | |
| | DCCP-Request(seqno 1) + MP_PRIO(1)| |
| |------------------------------------------>|
| | | |
| | DCCP-Response + | |
| |<---- MP_CONFIRM(seqno 1, MP_PRIO) --------|
| | | |
Figure 7: Example MP-DCCP CONFIRM procedure
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
A second example to illustrate the same MP-DCCP confirm procedure but
where an out of date option is also delivered is shown in (Figure 8.
Here, a first DCCP-Data is sent from Host A to Host B with option
MP_PRIO set to 4. Host A subsequently sends a second DCCP-Data with
option MP_PRIO set to 1. In this case, the delivery of the first
MP_PRIO is delayed in the network between Host A and Host B and
arrives after the second MP_PRIO. Host B ignores this second MP_PRIO
as the associated sequence number is earlier than the first. Host B
sends a DCCP-Ack confirming receipt of the MP_PRIO(1) with sequence
number 2.
Host A Host B
------------------------ ------------------------
Address A1 Address A2 Address B1 Address B2
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
| | | |
| | DCCP-Data(seqno 1) + MP_PRIO(4) | |
| |------------ | |
| | \ | |
| | DCCP-Data(seqno 2) + MP_PRIO(1) | |
| |--------------\--------------------------->|
| | \ | |
| | -------------------------->|
| | | |
| | DCCP-Ack + | |
| |<---- MP_CONFIRM(seqno 2, MP_PRIO) --------|
| | | |
Figure 8: Example MP-DCCP CONFIRM procedure with outdated suboption
4.2.2. MP_JOIN
1 2 3
01234567 89012345 67890123 45678901
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00101110|00001100|00000001| Addr ID|
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Path Token |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Nonce |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Type=46 Length=12 MP_OPT=1
Figure 9: Format of the MP_JOIN Suboption
The MP_JOIN option is used to add a new subflow to an existing MP-
DCCP connection and REQUIRES a successful establishment of the first
subflow using MP_KEY. The Path Token is the SHA256 hash of the
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
derived key (d-key), which was previously exchanged with the MP_KEY
option. MP_HMAC MUST be set when using MP_JOIN to provide
authentication (See Section 4.2.6 for details).
The MP_JOIN option includes an "Addr ID" (Address ID) generated by
the sender of the option, used to identify the source address of this
packet, even if the IP header was changed in transit by a middlebox.
The value of this field is generated by the sender and MUST map
uniquely to a source IP address for the sending host. The Address ID
allows address removal (Section 4.2.9) without needing to know what
the source address at the receiver is, thus allowing address removal
through NATs. The Address ID also allows correlation between new
subflow setup attempts and address signaling (Section 4.2.8), to
prevent setting up duplicate subflows on the same path, if an MP_JOIN
and MP_ADDADDR are sent at the same time.
The Address IDs of the subflow used in the initial DCCP Request/
Response exchange of the first subflow in the connection are
implicit, and have the value zero. A host MUST store the mappings
between Address IDs and addresses both for itself and the remote
host. An implementation will also need to know which local and
remote Address IDs are associated with which established subflows,
for when addresses are removed from a local or remote host. An
Address ID always MUST be unique over the lifetime of a subflow and
can only be re-assigned if sender and receiver no longer have them in
use.
The Nonce is a 32-bit random value locally generated for every
MP_JOIN option. Together with the Token, the Nonce value builds the
basis to calculate the HMAC used in the handshaking process as
described in Section 4.3.
If the path token can not be verified by the receiving host during a
handshake negotiation, the new subflow MUST be closed, as specified
in Section 4.6.
4.2.3. MP_FAST_CLOSE
DCCP can send a Close or Reset signals to abruptly close a
connection. Using MP-DCCP, a regular Close or Reset only has the
scope of the SubFlow over which a signal was received. As such, it
will only close the subflow and does not affect other remaining
SubFlows or the MP-DCCP connection (unless it is the last SubFlow).
This permits break-before-make handover between SubFlows.
An MP-DCCP-level "Reset" allows the abrupt closure of the MP-DCCP
connection using the MP_FAST_CLOSE suboption.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
1 2 3
01234567 89012345 67890123 45678901 23456789
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00101110| var |00000010| Key Data ...
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Type=46 Length MP_OPT=2
Figure 10: Format of the MP_FAST_CLOSE Suboption
The MP_FAST_CLOSE suboption MUST be sent from an initiating host on
all subflows using a DCCP-Reset packet with Reset Code THIS-RESET-
CODE. To protect from unauthorized shutdown of a multipath DCCP
connection, the selected Key Data of the peer host during the
handshaking procedure is carried by the MP_FAST_CLOSE option.
On completion of this step, the initiating host tears down all
subflows and the multipath DCCP connection immediately terminates.
Upon reception of the MP_FAST_CLOSE and successful validation of the
Key Data, a DCCP Reset packet response is sent on all subflows to the
initiating host with Reset Code THIS-RESET-CODE. The host then
closes the MP-DCCP connection (i.e., it transitions the connection
state to CLOSED).
4.2.4. MP_KEY
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
|0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0| var |0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1| Key Type (1) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Key Data (1) | Key Type (2) | Key Data (2) | ....
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Type=46 Length MP_OPT=3
Figure 11: Format of the MP_KEY Suboption
The MP_KEY suboption is used to exchange key material between hosts
for a given connection. The Length varies between 12 and 68 Bytes
for a single-key message, and up to 110 Bytes when all specified Key
Types 0-2 are provided. The Key Type field specifies the type of the
following key data. The set of key types are shown in Table 5.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
+========================+====================+===================+
| Key Type | Key Length (Bytes) | Meaning |
+========================+====================+===================+
| 0 =Plain Text | 8 | Plain Text Key |
+------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| 1 =ECDHE-C25519-SHA256 | 32 | ECDHE with SHA256 |
| | | and Curve25519 |
+------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| 2 =ECDHE-C25519-SHA512 | 64 | ECDHE with SHA512 |
| | | and Curve25519 |
+------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| 3-255 | | Unassigned |
+------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
Table 5: MP_KEY Key Types
Plain Text
Key Material is exchanged in plain text between hosts, and the key
parts (key-a, key-b) are used by each host to generate the derived
key (d-key) by concatenating the two parts with the local key in
front (e.g. hostA d-key(A)=(key-a+key-b), hostB d-key(B)=(key-
b+key-a)).
ECDHE-SHA256-C25519
Public Key Material is exchanged via ECDHE key exchange with
SHA256 and Curve 25519 to generate the derived key (d-key) from
the shared secret.
ECDHE-SHA512-C25519
Public Key Material is exchanged via ECDHE key exchange with
SHA512 and Curve 25519 to generate the derived key (d-key) from
the shared secret.
Multiple keys are only permitted in the DCCP-Request message of the
handshake procedure for the first subflow. This allows the hosts to
agree on a single key type to be used, as described in Section 4.3
If the key type can not be agreed in the handshake procedure, the MP-
DCCP connection MUST fallback to not using MP-DCCP, as indicated in
Section 4.6
4.2.5. MP_SEQ
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
1 2 3 4 5
01234567 89012345 67890123 45678901 23456789 01234567 89012345
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00101110|00001001|00000100| Multipath Sequence Number
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|
+--------+--------+
Type=46 Length=9 MP_OPT=4
Figure 12: Format of the MP_SEQ Suboption
The MP_SEQ suboption is used for end-to-end datagram-based sequence
numbers of an MP-DCCP connection. The initial data sequence number
(IDSN) SHOULD be set randomly [RFC4086].
The MP_SEQ number space is independent from the path individual
sequence number space and MUST be sent with all DCCP-Data and DCCP-
DataACK packet.
When the sequence number space is exhausted, the sequence number MUST
be wrapped. [RFC7323] provides guidance on selecting an
appropriately sized sequence number space according to the maximum
segment lifetime of TCP. 64 bits is the recommended size for TCP to
avoid the sequence number space going through within the segment
lifetime. For DCCP, the Maximum Segment Lifetime is the same as that
of TCP as specified in [RFC4340], Section 3.4. Compared to TCP, the
sequence number for DCCP is incremented per packet rather than per
byte transmitted. For this reason, the 48 bits chosen in MP_SEQ are
considered sufficiently large.
4.2.6. MP_HMAC
1 2 3 4
01234567 89012345 67890123 45678901 23456789 01234567
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00101110|00010111|00000101| HMAC-SHA256 (20 bytes) ...
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Type=46 Length=23 MP_OPT=5
Figure 13: Format of the MP_HMAC Suboption
The MP_HMAC suboption is used to provide authentication for the
MP_JOIN, MP_ADDADDR, and MP_REMOVEADDR suboptions. The HMAC code is
generated according to [RFC2104] in combination with the SHA256 hash
algorithm described in [RFC6234], with the output truncated to the
leftmost 160 bits (20 bytes).
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
The "Key" used for the HMAC computation is the derived key (d-key)
described in Section 4.2.4, while the HMAC "Message" is a
concatenation of
* MP_JOIN: The token and nonce of the MP_JOIN for which
authentication shall be performed.
* MP_ADDADDR: The Address ID with associated IP address and if
defined port, otherwise two octets of value 0.
* MP_REMOVEADDR: Solely the Address ID.
MP_JOIN, MP_ADDADDR and MP_REMOVEADDR can co-exist or be used
multiple times within a single DCCP packet. All these multipath
options include an individual MP_HASH option. This ensures the
MP_HASH is correctly associated. Otherwise, the receiver cannot
validate multiple MP_JOIN, MP_ADDADDR or MP_REMOVEADDR. Therefore, a
MP_HASH MUST directly follow its associated multipath option. In the
likely case of sending a MP_JOIN together with a MP_ADDADDR, this
results in concatenating MP_JOIN + MP_HMAC_1 + MP_ADDADDR +
MP_HMAC_2, whereas the first MP_HMAC_1 is associated with the MP_JOIN
and the second MP_HMAC_2 with the MP_ADDADDR suboption.
If the HMAC can not be validated by a receiving host, the subsequent
handling depends on which suboption was being authenticated. If the
suboption to be authenticated was either MP_ADDADDR or MP_REMOVEADDR,
the receiving host MUST silently ignore it (see Section 4.2.8 and
Section 4.2.9). If the suboption to be authenticated was MP_JOIN,
the subflow MUST be closed (see Section 4.6)
4.2.7. MP_RTT
1 2 3 4 5
01234567 89012345 67890123 45678901 23456789 01234567 89012345
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00101110|00001100|00000110|RTT Type| RTT
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Age |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Type=46 Length=12 MP_OPT=6
Figure 14: Format of the MP_RTT Suboption
The MP_RTT suboption is used to transmit RTT values and age
(represented in milliseconds) that belong to the path over which this
information is transmitted. This information is useful for the
receiving host to calculate the RTT difference between the SubFlows
and to estimate whether missing data has been lost.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
The RTT and Age information is a 32-bit integer. This covers a
period of approximately 1193 hours.
Raw RTT (=0)
Raw RTT value of the last Datagram Round-Trip, preferably provided
by the CCID in use.
Min RTT (=1)
Min RTT value over a given period, preferably provided by the CCID
in use.
Max RTT (=2)
Max RTT value over a given period, preferably provided by the CCID
in use.
Smooth RTT (=3)
Averaged RTT value over a given period, preferably provided by the
CCID in use.
Age
The Age parameter defines the time difference between now -
creation of the MP_RTT option - and the conducted RTT measurement
in milliseconds. If no previous measurement exists, e.g., when
initialized, the value is 0.
An example of a flow showing the exchange of path individual RTT
information is provided in Figure 15. RTT1 refers to the first path
and RTT2 to the second path. The RTT values could be extracted from
the sender's Congestion Control procedure and at the receiving host
using the MP_RTT suboption. With the reception of RTT1 and RTT2, the
receiver is able to calculate the path_delta which corresponds to the
absolute difference of both values. In the case that the path
individual RTTs are symmetric in the down- and uplink directions,
packets with missing sequence number MP_SEQ, e.g., in a reordering
process, can be assumed lost after path_delta/2.
MP-DCCP MP-DCCP
Sender Receiver
+--------+ MP_RTT(RTT1) +-------------+
| RTT1 |----------------| |
| | | path_delta= |
| | MP_RTT(RTT2) | |RTT1-RTT2| |
| RTT2 |----------------| |
+--------+ +-------------+
Figure 15: Exemplary flow of MP_RTT exchange and usage
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
4.2.8. MP_ADDADDR
The MP_ADDADDR suboption announces additional addresses (and,
optionally, port numbers) by which a host can be reached. This can
be sent at any time during an existing DCCP connection, when the
sender wishes to enable multiple paths and/or when additional paths
become available. Multiple instances of this suboption within a
packet can simultaneously advertise new addresses.
The Length is variable depending on the address family (IPv4 or IPv6)
and whether a port number is used. This field is in range between 8
and 22 bytes.
The final 2 octets, optionally specify the DCCP port number to use,
and their presence can be inferred from the length of the option.
Although it is expected that the majority of use cases will use the
same port pairs as used for the initial subflow (e.g., port 80
remains port 80 on all subflows, as does the ephemeral port at the
client), there could be cases (such as port-based load balancing)
where the explicit specification of a different port is required. If
no port is specified, the receiving host MUST assume that any attempt
to connect to the specified address uses the port already used by the
SubFlow on which the MP_ADDADDR signal was sent.
Along with the MP_ADDADDR option a MP_HMAC option MUST be sent for
authentication. The truncated HMAC parameter present in this MP_HMAC
option is the leftmost 20 bytes of an HMAC, negotiated and calculated
as described in Section 4.2.6. In the same way as for MP_JOIN, the
key for the HMAC algorithm, in the case of the message transmitted by
Host A, will be Key-A followed by Key-B, and in the case of Host B,
Key-B followed by Key-A. These are the keys that were exchanged and
selected in the original MP_KEY handshake. The message for the HMAC
is the Address ID, IP address, and port that precede the HMAC in the
MP_ADDADDR option. If the port is not present in the MP_ADDADDR
option, the HMAC message will include 2 octets of value zero. The
rationale for the HMAC is to prevent unauthorized entities from
injecting MP_ADDADDR signals in an attempt to hijack a connection.
Note that, additionally, the presence of this HMAC prevents the
address from being changed in flight unless the key is known by an
intermediary. If a host receives an MP_ADDADDR option for which it
cannot validate the HMAC, it SHOULD silently ignore the option.
The presence of a MP_SEQ Section 4.2.5 MUST be ensured in a DCCP
datagram in which MP_ADDADDR is sent, as described in Section 4.2.1.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+-------+-------+---------------+
|0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0| var |0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1| Address ID |
+---------------+---------------+-------+-------+---------------+
| Address (IPv4 - 4 bytes / IPv6 - 16 bytes) |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Port (2 bytes, optional) | + MP_HMAC option
+-------------------------------+
Type=46 Length MP_OPT=7
Figure 16: Format of the MP_ADDADDR Suboption
Each address has an Address ID that could be used for uniquely
identifying the address within a connection for address removal. The
Address ID is also used to identify MP_JOIN options (see
Section 4.2.2) relating to the same address, even when address
translators are in use. The Address ID MUST uniquely identify the
address for the sender of the option (within the scope of the
connection); the mechanism for allocating such IDs is implementation
specific.
All Address IDs learned via either MP_JOIN or MP_ADDADDR can be
stored by the receiver in a data structure that gathers all the
Address-ID-to-address mappings for a connection (identified by a
token pair). In this way, there is a stored mapping between the
Address ID, observed source address, and token pair for future
processing of control information for a connection. Note that an
implementation MAY discard incoming address advertisements, for
example, for avoiding the required mapping state, or because
advertised addresses are of no use to it (for example, IPv6 addresses
when it has IPv4 only). Therefore, a host MUST treat address
advertisements as soft state, and the sender MAY choose to refresh
advertisements periodically.
A host MAY advertise a private addresses, e.g., because there is a
NAT on the path. It is not desirable to prohibit this, since there
could be cases where both hosts have additional interfaces on the
same private network.
The MP_JOIN handshake to create a new subflow (Section 4.2.2)
provides mechanisms to minimize security risks. The MP_JOIN message
contains a 32-bit token that uniquely identifies a connection to the
receiving host. If the token is unknown, the host MUST send a DCCP-
Reset.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
In the unlikely event that the token is already known, the SubFlow
setup will continue, but the HMAC exchange must provide
authentication, which will fail. This provides sufficient protection
against two unconnected hosts accidentally setting up a new subflow
using a private address.
Further security considerations around the issue of MP_ADDADDR
messages that accidentally misdirect, or maliciously direct, new
MP_JOIN attempts are discussed in Section 5. If a sending host of an
MP_ADDADDR knows that no incoming subflows can be established at a
particular address, an MP_ADDADDR SHOULD NOT announce that address
unless the sending host has new knowledge about the possibility to do
so. This information can be obtained from local firewall or routing
settings, knowledge about availability of external NAT or firewall,
or from connectivity checks performed by the host/application.
The reception of an MP_ADDADDR message is acknowledged using
MP_CONFIRM (Section 4.2.1). This ensures reliable exchange of
address information.
A host MAY send an MP_ADDADDR message with an already assigned
Address ID, but the Address MUST be the same as previously assigned
to this Address ID, and the Port MUST be different from one already
in use for this Address ID. If these conditions are not met, the
receiver SHOULD silently ignore the MP_ADDADDR. A host wishing to
replace an existing Address ID MUST first remove the existing one
(Section 4.2.9).
A host that receives an MP_ADDADDR, but finds at connection set up
that the IP address and port number is unsuccessful, SHOULD NOT
perform further connection attempts to this address/port combination
for this connection. However, a sender that wishes to trigger a new
incoming connection attempt on a previously advertised address/port
combination can therefore refresh the MP_ADDADDR information by
sending the option again.
4.2.9. MP_REMOVEADDR
If, during the lifetime of an MP-DCCP connection, a previously
announced address becomes invalid (e.g., if an interface disappears),
the affected host SHOULD announce this. The peer can remove a
previously added address with an Address ID from a connection using
the Remove Address (MP_REMOVEADDR) suboption. This will terminate
any subflows currently using that address.
Along with the MP_REMOVEADDR suboption a MP_HMAC option MUST be sent
for authentication. The truncated HMAC parameter present in this
MP_HMAC option is the leftmost 20 bytes of an HMAC, negotiated and
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
calculated as described in Section 4.2.6. In the same way as for
MP_JOIN, the key for the HMAC algorithm, in the case of the message
transmitted by Host A, will be Key-A followed by Key-B, and in the
case of Host B, Key-B followed by Key-A. These are the keys that
were exchanged and selected in the original MP_KEY handshake. The
message for the HMAC is the Address ID.
The rationale for using a HMAC is to prevent unauthorized entities
from injecting MP_REMOVEADDR signals in an attempt to hijack a
connection. Note that, additionally, the presence of this HMAC
prevents the address from being removed in flight unless the key is
known by an intermediary. If a host receives an MP_REMOVEADDR option
for which it cannot validate the HMAC, it SHOULD silently ignore the
option.
A receiver MUST include a MP_SEQ Section 4.2.5 in a DCCP datagram
that sends an MP_REMOVEADDR. Further details are given in
Section 4.2.1.
The reception of an MP_REMOVEADDR message is acknowledged using
MP_CONFIRM (Section 4.2.1). This ensures reliable exchange of
address information. To avoid inconsistent states, the sender
releases the address ID only after MP_REMOVEADDR has been confirmed.
The sending and receipt of this message SHOULD trigger the closing
procedure described in [RFC4340] between client and server,
respectively on the affected subflow(s) (if possible). This helps
remove middlebox state, before removing any local state.
Address removal is done by Address ID to allow the use of NATs and
other middleboxes that rewrite source addresses. If there is no
address at the requested Address ID, the receiver will silently
ignore the request.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
|0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0|0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0|0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0| Address ID |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Type=46 Length=4 MP_OPT=8
-> followed by MP_HMAC option
Figure 17: Format of the MP_REMOVEADDR Suboption
A subflow that is still functioning MUST be closed with a DCCP-Close
exchange as in regular DCCP, rather than using this option. For more
information, see Section 4.5.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
4.2.10. MP_PRIO
The path priority SHOULD be considered as hints for the packet
scheduler when making decisions which path to use for payload
traffic. When a single specific path from the set of available paths
is treated with higher priority compared to the others when making
scheduling decisions for payload traffic, a host can signal such
change in priority to the peer. This could be used when there are
different costs for using different paths (e.g., WiFi is free while
cellular has limit on volume, 5G has higher energy consumption). The
priority of a path could also change, for example, when a mobile host
runs out of battery, the usage of only a single path may be the
preferred choice of the user.
The MP_PRIO suboption, shown below, can be used to set a priority
flag for the SubFlow over which the suboption is received.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
|0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0|0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0|0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1|(resvd)| prio |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
Type=46 Length=4 MP_OPT=9
Figure 18: Format of the MP_PRIO Suboption
The following values are available for Prio field:
* 0: Do not use. The path is not available.
* 1: Standby: do not use this path for traffic scheduling, if
another path (secondary or primary) is available. The path will
only be used if other secondary or primary paths are not
established.
* 2: Secondary: do not use this path for traffic scheduling, if the
other paths are good enough. The path will be used occasionally
for increasing temporarily the available capacity, e.g. when
primary paths are congested or are not available. This is the
recommended setting for paths that have costs or data caps as
these paths will be used less frequently then primary paths.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
* 3 - 15: Primary: The path can be used for packet scheduling
decisions. The priority number indicates the relative priority of
one path over the other for primary paths. Higher numbers
indicate higher priority. The peer should consider sending
traffic first over higher priority paths. This is the recommended
setting for paths that do not have a cost or data caps associated
with them as these paths will be frequently used.
Example use cases include: 1) Setting Wi-Fi path to Primary and
Cellular paths to Secondary. In this case Wi-Fi will be used and
Cellular only if the Wi-Fi path is congested or not available. Such
setting results in using the Cellular path only temporally, if more
capacity is needed than the WiFi path can provide, indicating a clear
priority of the Wi-Fi path over the Cellular due to e.g. cost
reasons. 2) Setting Wi-Fi path to Primary and Cellular to Standby.
In this case Wi-Fi will be used and Cellular only, if the Wi-Fi path
is not available. 3) Setting Wi-Fi path to Primary and Cellular path
to Primary. In this case, both paths can be used when making packet
scheduling decisions.
If not specified, the default behavior is to always use a path for
packet scheduling decisions (MP_PRIO=3), when the path has been
established and added to an existing MP-DCCP connection. At least
one path ought to have a MP_PRIO value greater or equal to one for it
to be allowed to send on the connection. It is RECOMMENDED to update
at least one path to a non-zero MP_PRIO value when an MP-DCCP
connection enters a state where all paths remain with an MP_PRIO
value of zero. This helps an MP-DCCP connection to schedule when the
multipath scheduler strictly respects MP_PRIO value 0. MP_PRIO is
assumed to be exchanged reliably using the MP_CONFIRM mechanisms (see
Table 4).
A MP_SEQ Section 4.2.5 MUST be present in a DCCP datagram in which
MP_PRIO is sent. Further details are given in Section 4.2.1.
4.2.11. MP_CLOSE
1 2 3
01234567 89012345 67890123 45678901 23456789
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|00101110| var |00001010| Key Data ...
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Type=46 Length MP_OPT=10
Figure 19: Format of the MP_CLOSE Suboption
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
An MP-DCCP connection can be gracefully closed by sending and
MP_CLOSE to the peer host. On all subflows, the regular termination
procedure as described in [RFC4340] MUST be initiated using MP_CLOSE
in the initial packet (either a DCCP-CloseReq or a DCCP-Close). When
a DCCP-CloseReq is used, the following DCCP-Close MUST also carry the
MP_CLOSE to avoid keeping a state in the sender of the DCCP-CloseReq.
At the initiator of the DCCP-CloseReq, all sockets including the MP-
DCCP connection socket, transition to CLOSEREQ state. To protect
from unauthorized shutdown of a multi-path connection, the selected
Key Data of the peer host during the handshaking procedure MUST be
included in by the MP_CLOSE option and must be validated by the peer
host. Note, the Key Data is different between MP_CLOSE option
carried by DCCP-CloseReq or DCCP-Close.
On reception of the first DCCP-CloseReq carrying a MP_CLOSE with
valid Key Data, or due to a local decision, all subflows transition
to the CLOSING state before transmitting a DCCP-Close carrying
MP_CLOSE. The MP-DCCP connection socket on the host sending the
DCCP-Close reflects the state of the initial SubFlow during handshake
with MP_KEY option. If the initial subflow no longer exists, the
state moves immediately to CLOSED.
Upon reception of the first DCCP-Close carrying a MP_CLOSE with valid
Key Data at the peer host, all subflows, as well as the MP-DCCP
connection socket, move to the CLOSED state. After this, a DCCP-
Reset with Reset Code 1 MUST be sent on any subflow in response to a
received DCCP-Close containing a valid MP_CLOSE option.
When the MP-DCCP connection socket is in CLOSEREQ or CLOSE state, new
subflow requests using MP_JOIN MUST be ignored.
Contrary to a MP_FAST_CLOSE Section 4.2.3, no single-sided abrupt
termination is applied.
4.2.12. Experimental MP-DCCP Sub-Option MP_EXP for private use
This section reserves a MP-DCCP sub-option to define and specify any
experimental additional feature for improving and optimization of MP-
DCCP protocol. This option could be applicable to specific
environments or scenarios according to potential new requirements and
meant for private use only. MP_OPT feature number 11 is specified
with an exemplary description as below:
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
|0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0| var |0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1| Data TBD |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| ...
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Type=46 Length MP_OPT=11
Figure 20: Format of the MP_EXP Suboption
The Data field can carry any data according to the foreseen use by
the experimenters with a maximum length of 252 Bytes.
4.3. MP-DCCP Handshaking Procedure
An example to illustrate the MP-DCCP handshake procedure is shown in
Figure 21.
Host A Host B
------------------------ ----------
Address A1 Address A2 Address B1
---------- ---------- ----------
| | |
| DCCP-Request + MP_CAPABLE |
|------- MP_KEY(Key-A(1), Key-A(2),...) ------------->|
|<---------------------- MP_KEY(Key-B) ---------------|
| DCCP-Response + MP_CAPABLE |
| | |
| DCCP-Ack | |
|--------- MP_KEY(Key-A) + MP_KEY(Key-B) ------------>|
|<----------------------------------------------------|
| DCCP-Ack | |
| | |
| | DCCP-Request + MP_CAPABLE |
| |--- MP_JOIN(TB,RA) ------------------->|
| |<------MP_JOIN(TB,RB) + MP_HMAC(B)-----|
| |DCCP-Response + MP_CAPABLE |
| | |
| |DCCP-Ack |
| |-------- MP_HMAC(A) ------------------>|
| |<--------------------------------------|
| |DCCP-ACK |
Figure 21: Example MP-DCCP Handshake
The basic initial handshake for the first subflow is as follows:
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
* Host A sends a DCCP-Request with the MP-Capable feature Change
request and the MP_KEY option with an Host-specific Key-A for each
of supported types as described in Section 4.2.4.
* Host B sends a DCCP-Response with Confirm feature for MP-Capable
and the MP_Key option with a single Host-specific Key-B. The type
of the key is chosen from the list of supported types from the
previous request.
* Host A sends a DCCP-Ack with both Keys echoed to Host B.
* Host B sends a DCCP-Ack to confirm both keys and conclude the
handshaking.
Host A waits for the final DCCP-Ack from host B before starting any
establishment of additional subflow connections.
The handshake for subsequent subflows based on a successful initial
handshake is as follows:
* Host A sends a DCCP-Request with the MP-Capable feature Change
request and the MP_JOIN option with Host B's Token TB, generated
from the derived key by applying a SHA256 hash and truncating to
the first 32 bits. Additionally, an own random nonce RA is
transmitted with the MP_JOIN.
* Host B computes the HMAC of the DCCP-Request and sends a DCCP-
Response with Confirm feature option for MP-Capable and the
MP_JOIN option with the Token TB and a random nonce RB together
with the computed MP_HMAC. The HMAC is calculated by taking the
leftmost 20 bytes from the SHA256 hash of a HMAC code created by
using the nonce received with MP_JOIN(A) and the local nonce RB as
message and the derived key described in Section 4.2.4 as key:
MP_HMAC(B) = HMAC-SHA256(Key=d-key(B), Msg=RB+RA)
* Host A sends a DCCP-Ack with the HMAC computed for the DCCP-
Response. The HMAC is calculated by taking the leftmost 20 bytes
from the SHA256 hash of a HMAC code created by using the local
nonce RA and the nonce received with MP_JOIN(B) as message and the
derived key described in Section 4.2.4 as key:
MP_HMAC(A) = HMAC-SHA256(Key=d-key(A), Msg=RA+RB)
* Host B sends a DCCP-Ack to confirm the HMAC and to conclude the
handshaking.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
4.4. Address knowledge exchange
4.4.1. Advertising a new path (MP_ADDADDR)
When a host (Host A) wants to advertise the availability of a new
path, it should use the MP_ADDADDR option (Section 4.2.8) as shown in
the example in Figure 22. The MP_ADDADDR option passed in the DCCP-
Data contains the following parameters: * an identifier (id 2) for
the new IP address which is used as a reference in subsequent control
exchanges. * the IP address of the new path (A2_IP) * A pair of
octets specifying the port number associated with this IP address.
The value of 00 here, indicates that the port number is the same as
that used for the initial subflow address A1_IP
The following options MUST be included in a packet carrying
MP_ADDADDR: * the leftmost 20 bytes of the HMAC(A) generated during
the initial handshaking procedure described in Section 4.3 and
Section 4.2.6 * the MP_SEQ option with the sequence number (seqno 12)
for this message according to Section 4.2.5.
Host B acknowledges receipt of the MP_ADDADDR message with a DCCP-Ack
containing the MP_CONFIRM option. The parameters supplied in this
response are as follows: * an MP_CONFIRM containing the MP_SEQ number
(seqno 12) of the packet carrying the option that we are confirming
together with the MP_ADDADDR option * the leftmost 20 bytes of the
HMAC(B) generated during the initial handshaking procedure
Section 4.3
Host A Host B
------------------------ -----------
Address A1 Address A2 Address B1
---------- ---------- -----------
| | |
| DCCP-Data + MP_ADDADDR(id 2, A2_IP, 00) + |
|------- MP_HMAC(A) + MP_SEQ(seqno 12) -------------->|
| | |
| DCCP-Ack + MP_HMAC(B) + |
|<----- MP_CONFIRM(seqno 12, MP_ADDADDR) -------------|
Figure 22: Example MP-DCCP ADDADDR procedure
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
4.4.2. Removing a path (MP_REMOVEADDR)
When a host (Host A) wants to indicate that a path is no longer
available, it should use the MP_REMOVEADDR option (Section 4.2.9) as
shown in the example in Figure 23. The MP_REMOVEADDR option passed
in the DCCP-Data contains the following parameters: * an identifier
(id 2) for the IP address to remove (A2_IP) and which was specified
in a previous MP_ADDADDR message.
The following options must be included in a packet carrying
MP_REMOVEADDR * the leftmost 20 bytes of the HMAC(A) generated during
the initial handshaking procedure described in Section 4.3 and
Section 4.2.6 * the MP_SEQ option with the sequence number (seqno 33)
for this message according to Section 4.2.5.
Host B acknowledges receipt of the MP_REMOVEADDR message with a DCCP-
Ack containing the MP_CONFIRM option. The parameters supplied in
this response are as follows: * an MP_CONFIRM containing the MP_SEQ
number (seqno 33) of the packet carrying the option that we are
confirming, together with the MP_REMOVEADDR option * the leftmost 20
bytes of the HMAC(B) generated during the initial handshaking
procedure Section 4.3
Host A Host B
------------------------ -----------
Address A1 Address A2 Address B1
---------- ---------- -----------
| | |
| DCCP-Data + MP_REMOVEADDR(id 2) + |
|------- MP_HMAC(A) + MP_SEQ(seqno 33) -------------->|
| | |
| DCCP-Ack + MP_HMAC(B) + |
|<----- MP_CONFIRM(seqno 33, MP_REMOVEADDR) ----------|
Figure 23: Example MP-DCCP REMOVEADDR procedure
4.5. Close a MP-DCCP connection
When a host wants to close an existing subflow but not the whole MP-
DCCP connection, it MUST initiate the regular DCCP connection
termination procedure as described in Section 5.6 of [RFC4340], i.e.,
it sends a DCCP-Close/DCCP-Reset on the subflow. This may be
preceded by a DCCP-CloseReq. In the event of an irregular
termination of a subflow, e.g., during subflow establishment, it MUST
use an appropriate DCCP reset code as specified in IANA
[DCCP.Parameter] for DCCP operations. This could be, for example,
sending reset code 5 (Option Error) when an MP-DCCP option provides
invalid data or reset code 9 (Too Busy) when the maximum number of
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
maintainable paths is reached. Note that receiving a reset code 9
for secondary subflows SHOULD NOT impact already existing active
subflows. If necessary, these subflows are terminated in a
subsequent step using the procedures described in this section.
A host terminates an MP-DCCP connection using the DCCP connection
termination specified in section 5.5 of [RFC4340] on each subflow
with the first packet on each subflow carrying MP_CLOSE (see
Section 4.2.11).
Host A Host B
------ ------
<- Optional DCCP-CloseReq +
MP_CLOSE [A's key]
[on all subflows]
DCCP-Close + MP_CLOSE ->
[B's key] [on all subflows]
<- DCCP-Reset
[on all subflows]
Additionally, an MP-DCCP connection may be closed abruptly using the
"Fast Close" procedure described in Section 4.2.3, where a DCCP-Reset
is sent on all subflows, each carrying the MP_FAST_CLOSE option.
Host A Host B
------ ------
DCCP-Reset + MP_FAST_CLOSE ->
[B's key] [on all subflows]
<- DCCP-Reset
[on all subflows]
4.6. Fallback
When a subflow fails to operate following MP-DCCP intended behavior,
it is necessary to proceed with a fallback. This may be either
falling back to regular DCCP [RFC4340] or removing a problematic
subflow. The main reasons for subflow failing include: no MP support
at peer host, failure to negotiate protocol version, loss of MP-DCCP
suboptions, faulty/non-supported MP-DCCP options or modification of
payload data.
At the start of an MP-DCCP connection, the handshake ensures exchange
of MP-DCCP feature and options and thus ensures that the path is
fully MP-DCCP capable. If during the handshake procedure it appears
that DCCP-Request or DCCP-Response messages do not carry the
MP_CAPABLE feature, the MP-DCCP connection will not be established
and the handshake SHOULD fallback to regular DCCP (if this is not
possible it MUST be closed).
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
A connection SHOULD fallback to regular DCCP if the endpoints fail to
agree on a protocol version to use during the Multipath Capable
feature negotiation. This is described in Section 4.1. The protocol
version negotiation distinguishes between negotiation for the initial
connection establishment, and addition of subsequent subflows. If
protocol version negotiation is not successful during the initial
connection establishment, MP-DCCP connection will fallback to regular
DCCP.
The fallback procedure to regular DCCP MUST be also applied if the
MP_KEY Section 4.2.4 Key Type cannot be negotiated.
If a subflow attempts to join an existing MP-DCCP connection, but MP-
DCCP options or MP_CAPABLE feature are not present or are faulty in
the handshake procedure, that subflow MUST be closed. This is
especially the case if a different MP_CAPABLE version than the
originally negotiated version is used. Reception of a non-verifiable
MP_HMAC (Section 4.2.6) or an invalid MP_JOIN Path Token
Section 4.2.2 during flow establishment MUST cause the subflow to be
closed.
The subflow closing procedure MUST be also applied if a final ACK
carrying MP_KEY with wrong Key-A/Key-B is received or MP_KEY option
is malformed.
Another relevant case is when payload data is modified by
middleboxes. DCCP uses checksum to protect the data, as described in
section 9 of [RFC4340]. A checksum will fail if the data has been
changed in any way. All data from the start of the segment that
failed the checksum onwards cannot be considered trustworthy. DCCP
defines that if the checksum fails, the receiving endpoint MUST drop
the application data and report that data as dropped due to
corruption using a Data Dropped option (Drop Code 3, Corrupt). If
data is dropped due to corruption for an MP-DCCP connection, the
affected subflow MAY be closed.
4.7. Congestion Control Considerations
Senders MUST manage per-path congestion status, and avoid to sending
more data on a given path than congestion control for each path
allows.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
4.8. Maximum Packet Size Considerations
A DCCP implementation maintains the maximum packet size (MPS) during
operation of a DCCP session. This procedure is specified for single-
path DCCP in [RFC4340], Section 14. Without any restrictions, this
is adopted for MP-DCCP operations, in particular the PMTU measurement
and the Sender Behaviour. The DCCP application interface SHOULD
allow the application to discover the current MPS. This reflects the
current supported largest size for the data stream that can be used
across the set of all active MP-DCCP subflows.
4.9. Path usage strategies
MP-DCCP can be configured to realize one of several strategies for
path usage, via selecting one DCCP subflow of the multiple DCCP
subflows within a MP-DCCP connection for data transmission. This can
be a dynamic process further facilitated by the means of DCCP and MP-
DCCP defined options such as path preference using MP-PRIO, adding or
removing DCCP subflows using MP_REMOVEADDR, MP_ADDADDR or DCCP-Close/
DCCP-Reset and also path metrics such as packet-loss-rate, CWND or
RTT provided by the Congestion Control Algorithm. Selecting an
appropriate method can allow MP-DCCP to realize different path
utilization strategies that make MP-DCCP suitable for end-to-end
implementation over the Internet or in controlled environments such
as Hybrid Access or 5G ATSSS.
4.9.1. Path mobility
The path mobility strategy provides the use of a single path with a
seamless handover function to continue the connection when the
currently used path is deemed unsuitable for service delivery. Some
of the DCCP subflows of a MP-DCCP connection might become inactive
due to either the occurrence of certain error conditions (e.g., DCCP
timeout, packet loss threshold, RTT threshold, closed/removed) or
adjustments from the MP-DCCP user. When there is outbound data to
send and the primary path becomes inactive (e.g., due to failures) or
de-prioritized, the MP-DCCP endpoint SHOULD try to send the data
through an alternate path with a different source or destination
address (depending on the point of failure), if one exists. This
process SHOULD respect the path priority configured by MP_PRIO or if
not available pick the most divergent source-destination pair from
the original used source-destination pair. Note: Rules for picking
the most appropriate source-destination pair are an implementation
decision and are not specified within this document. Path mobility
is supported in the current Linux reference implementation
[multipath-dccp.org].
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
4.9.2. Concurrent path usage
Different to a path mobility strategy, the selection between MP-DCCP
subflows is a per-packet decision that is a part of the multipath
scheduling process. This method would allow multiple subflows to be
simultaneously used to aggregate the path resources to obtain higher
connection throughput.
In this scenario, the selection of congestion control, per-packet
scheduling and potential re-ordering method determines a concurrent
path utilization strategy and result in a particular transport
characteristic. A concurrent path usage method uses a scheduling
design that could seek to maximize reliability, throughput,
minimizing latency, etc.
Concurrent path usage over the Internet can have implications. When
a Multipath DCCP connection uses two or more paths, there is no
guarantee that these paths are fully disjoint. When two (or more)
subflows share the same bottleneck, using a standard congestion
control scheme could result in an unfair distribution of the capacity
with the multipath connection using more capacity than competing
single path connections.
Multipath TCP uses the coupled congestion control Linked Increases
Algorithm (LIA) specified in the experimental specification [RFC6356]
to solve this problem. This scheme could also be specified for
Multipath DCCP. The same applies to other coupled congestion control
schemes that have been proposed for Multipath TCP such as
Opportunistic Linked Increases Algorithm [OLIA].
The specification of scheduling for concurrent multipath and related
the congestion control algorithms and re-ordering methods for use in
the general Internet are outside the scope of this document. If, and
when, the IETF specifies a method for concurrent usage of multiple
paths for the general Internet, the framework specified in this
document could be used to provide an IETF recommended method for MP-
DCCP.
5. Security Considerations
Similar to DCCP, MP-DCCP does not provide cryptographic security
guarantees inherently. Thus, if applications need cryptographic
security (integrity, authentication, confidentiality, access control,
and anti-replay protection) the use of IPsec, DTLS over DCCP
[RFC5238] or other end-to-end security is recommended; Secure Real-
time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711] is one candidate protocol
for authentication. Together with Encryption of Header Extensions in
SRTP, as provided by [RFC6904], also integrity would be provided.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
DCCP [RFC4340] provides protection against hijacking and limits the
potential impact of some denial-of-service attacks, but DCCP provides
no inherent protection against an on-path attacker snooping on data
packets. Regarding the security of MP-DCCP no additional risks
should be introduced compared to regular DCCP. Thereof derived are
the following key security requirements to be fulfilled by MP-DCCP:
* Provide a mechanism to confirm that parties involved in a subflow
handshake are identical to those in the original connection setup.
* Provide verification that the new address to be included in a MP
connection is valid for a peer to receive traffic at before using
it.
* Provide replay protection, i.e., ensure that a request to add/
remove a subflow is 'fresh'.
To achieve these goals, MP-DCCP includes a hash-based handshake
algorithm documented in Sections Section 4.2.4 and Section 4.3. The
security of the MP-DCCP connection depends on the use of keys that
are shared once at the start of the first subflow and are never sent
again over the network. To ease demultiplexing while not revealing
cryptographic material, future subflows use a truncated cryptographic
hash of this key as the connection identification "token". The keys
are concatenated and used as keys for creating Hash-based Message
Authentication Codes (HMACs) used on subflow setup, in order to
verify that the parties in the handshake are the same as in the
original connection setup. It also provides verification that the
peer can receive traffic at this new address. Replay attacks would
still be possible when only keys are used; therefore, the handshakes
use single-use random numbers (nonces) at both ends -- this ensures
that the HMAC will never be the same on two handshakes. Guidance on
generating random numbers suitable for use as keys is given in
[RFC4086]. During normal operation, regular DCCP protection
mechanisms (such as header checksum to protect DCCP headers against
corruption) is designed to provide the same level of protection
against attacks on individual DCCP subflows as exists for regular
DCCP.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
As discussed in Section 4.2.8, a host may advertise its private
addresses, but these might point to different hosts in the receiver's
network. The MP_JOIN handshake (Section 4.2.2) is designed to ensure
that this does not set up a subflow to the incorrect host. However,
it could still create unwanted DCCP handshake traffic. This feature
of MP-DCCP could be a target for denial-of-service exploits, with
malicious participants in MP-DCCP connections encouraging the
recipient to target other hosts in the network. Therefore,
implementations should consider heuristics at both the sender and
receiver to reduce the impact of this.
6. Interactions with Middleboxes
Issues from interaction with on-path middleboxes such as NATs,
firewalls, proxies, intrusion detection systems (IDSs), and others
have to be considered for all extensions to standard protocols since
otherwise unexpected reactions of middleboxes may hinder its
deployment. DCCP already provides means to mitigate the potential
impact of middleboxes, also in comparison to TCP (see [RFC4043],
Section 16). When both hosts are located behind a NAT or firewall
entity, specific measures have to be applied such as the [RFC5596]-
specified simultaneous-open technique that update the (traditionally
asymmetric) connection-establishment procedures for DCCP. Further
standardized technologies addressing middleboxes operating as NATs
are provided in [RFC5597].
[RFC6773] specifies UDP Encapsulation for NAT Traversal of DCCP
sessions, similar to other UDP encapsulations such as for SCTP
[RFC6951]. Future specifications by the IETF could specify other
methods for DCCP encapsulation.
7. Implementation
The approach described above has been implemented in open source
across different testbeds and a new scheduling algorithm has been
extensively tested. Also demonstrations of a laboratory setup have
been executed and have been published at [multipath-dccp.org].
8. Acknowledgments
[RFC6824] and [RFC8684] defined Multipath TCP and provided important
inputs for this specification.
The authors gratefully acknowledge significant input into this
document from Dirk von Hugo, Nathalie Romo Moreno, Omar Nassef,
Mohamed Boucadair, Simone Ferlin, and Behcet Sarikaya.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
9. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the MP
extension of the DCCP protocol in accordance with [RFC8126]. This
document defines one new value which is requested to be allocated in
the IANA DCCP Feature Numbers registry and three new registries to be
allocated in the DCCP registry group.
This document requests IANA to assign a new DCCP feature parameter
for negotiating the support of multipath capability for DCCP sessions
between hosts as described in Section 4. The following entry in
Table 6 should be added to the Feature Numbers registry in the DCCP
registry group according to [RFC4340], Section 19.4. under the "DCCP
Protocol" heading.
+=============================+====================+================+
| Value | Feature Name | Specification |
+=============================+====================+================+
| THIS-FEATURE | MP-DCCP capability | [ThisDocument] |
| (10 suggested) | feature | |
+-----------------------------+--------------------+----------------+
Table 6: Addition to DCCP Feature Numbers registry
Sect. Section 4.1 specifies the new 1-Byte entry above includes a
4-bit part to specify the version of the used MP-DCCP implementation.
This document requests IANA to create a new 'MP-DCCP Versions'
registry within the DCCP registry group to track the MP-DCCP version.
The initial content of this registry is as follows:
+============+================+================+
| Version | Value | Specification |
+============+================+================+
| THIS-VER | Suggested 0000 | [ThisDocument] |
+------------+----------------+----------------+
| Unassigned | 0001 - 1111 | |
+------------+----------------+----------------+
Table 7: MP-DCCP Versions Registry
Future MP-DCCP versions 1 to 15 are assigned from this registry using
the Specification Required policy (Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]).
This document requests IANA to assign a new DCCP protocol option
THIS-DCCP-OPTION (suggested type=46) as described in Section 4.2. In
this document, THIS-DCCP-OPTION is replaced by 46 for better
readability.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
IANA is requested to create a new 'MP-DCCP Suboptions' registry
within the DCCP registry group. The following entries in Table 8
should be added to the new 'MP-DCCP Suboptions' registry. The
registry in Table 8 has an upper boundary of 255 in the numeric value
field.
+===========+===============+=====================+===========+
| Value | Symbol | Name | Reference |
+===========+===============+=====================+===========+
| Type=46 | MP_OPT | DCCP Multipath | Section |
| | | option | 4.2 |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT=0 | MP_CONFIRM | Confirm reception/ | Section |
| | | processing of an | 4.2.1 |
| | | MP_OPT option | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT=1 | MP_JOIN | Join subflow to | Section |
| | | existing MP-DCCP | 4.2.2 |
| | | connection | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT=2 | MP_FAST_CLOSE | Close MP-DCCP | Section |
| | | connection | 4.2.3 |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT=3 | MP_KEY | Exchange key | Section |
| | | material for | 4.2.4 |
| | | MP_HMAC | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT=4 | MP_SEQ | Multipath Sequence | Section |
| | | Number | 4.2.5 |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT=5 | MP_HMAC | Hash-based Message | Section |
| | | Auth. Code for MP- | 4.2.6 |
| | | DCCP | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT=6 | MP_RTT | Transmit RTT values | Section |
| | | and calculation | 4.2.7 |
| | | parameters | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT=7 | MP_ADDADDR | Advertise | Section |
| | | additional | 4.2.8 |
| | | Address(es)/Port(s) | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT=8 | MP_REMOVEADDR | Remove Address(es)/ | Section |
| | | Port(s) | 4.2.9 |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT=9 | MP_PRIO | Change Subflow | Section |
| | | Priority | 4.2.10 |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
| MP_OPT=10 | MP_CLOSE | Close MP-DCCP | Section |
| | | subflow | 4.2.11 |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT=11 | MP_EXP | Experimental Sub- | Section |
| | | Option for private | 4.2.12 |
| | | use | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MP_OPT>11 | Unassigned | Reserved for future | |
| | | MP-DCCP suboptions | |
+-----------+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
Table 8: MP-DCCP Suboptions registry
Future MP-DCCP sub-options with MP_OPT>11 are assigned from this
registry using the Specification Required policy (Section 4.6 of
[RFC8126]).
In addition IANA is requested to assign a new DCCP Reset Code value
THIS-RESET-CODE (13 suggested) in the DCCP Reset Codes Registry, with
the short description "Abrupt MP termination". Use of this reset
code is defined in section Section 4.2.3.
In addition IANA is requested to assign for this version of the MP-
DCCP protocol a new 'MP_KEY' registry containing three different sub
options to the MP-KEY option to identify the MP_KEY Key types in
terms of 8-bit values as specified in Section 4.2.4 according to the
entries in Table 9 below. Values in range 3-255 (decimal) inclusive
remain unassigned in this THIS-VER of the protocol and are assigned
via Specification Required [RFC8126] in potential future versions of
the MP-DCCP protocol.
+=======+=====================+===================+===============+
| Value | Key Type | Name or Meaning | Reference |
+=======+=====================+===================+===============+
| 0 | Plain Text | Plain Text Key | Section 4.2.4 |
+-------+---------------------+-------------------+---------------+
| 1 | ECDHE-C25519-SHA256 | ECDHE with SHA256 | Section 4.2.4 |
| | | and Curve25519 | |
+-------+---------------------+-------------------+---------------+
| 2 | ECDHE-C25519-SHA512 | ECDHE with SHA512 | Section 4.2.4 |
| | | and Curve25519 | |
+-------+---------------------+-------------------+---------------+
Table 9: MP-DCCP MP_KEY registry with type sub-options for key
data exchange on different paths
10. References
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
10.1. Normative References
[DCCP.Parameter]
"IANA Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
Parameters", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dccp-
parameters/dccp-parameters.xhtml>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4340>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.amend-iccrg-multipath-reordering]
Amend, M. and D. Von Hugo, "Multipath sequence
maintenance", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
amend-iccrg-multipath-reordering-03, 25 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-amend-iccrg-
multipath-reordering-03>.
[I-D.amend-tsvwg-multipath-framework-mpdccp]
Amend, M., Bogenfeld, E., Brunstrom, A., Kassler, A., and
V. Rakocevic, "A multipath framework for UDP traffic over
heterogeneous access networks", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-amend-tsvwg-multipath-framework-
mpdccp-01, 8 July 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-amend-tsvwg-
multipath-framework-mpdccp-01>.
[I-D.lhwxz-hybrid-access-network-architecture]
Leymann, N., Heidemann, C., Cullen, M., Xue, L., and M.
Zhang, "Hybrid Access Network Architecture", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-lhwxz-hybrid-access-
network-architecture-02, 13 January 2015,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lhwxz-hybrid-
access-network-architecture-02>.
[I-D.muley-network-based-bonding-hybrid-access]
Muley, P., Henderickx, W., Geng, L., Liu, H., Cardullo,
L., Newton, J., Seo, S., Draznin, S., and B. Patil,
"Network based Bonding solution for Hybrid Access", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-muley-network-based-
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
bonding-hybrid-access-03, 22 October 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-muley-
network-based-bonding-hybrid-access-03>.
[IETF115.Slides]
Amend, M., "MP-DCCP for enabling transfer of UDP/IP
traffic over multiple data paths in multi-connectivity
networks", IETF105 , n.d.,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/
slides-105-tsvwg-sessa-62-dccp-extensions-for-multipath-
operation-00>.
[MP-DCCP.Paper]
Amend, M., Bogenfeld, E., Cvjetkovic, M., Rakocevic, V.,
Pieska, M., Kassler, A., and A. Brunstrom, "A Framework
for Multiaccess Support for Unreliable Internet Traffic
using Multipath DCCP", DOI 10.1109/LCN44214.2019.8990746,
October 2019,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/LCN44214.2019.8990746>.
[multipath-dccp.org]
"Multipath extension for DCCP", n.d.,
<https://multipath-dccp.org/>.
[OLIA] Khalili, R., Gast, N., Popovic, M., Upadhyay, U., and J.
Le Boudec, "MPTCP is not pareto-optimal: performance
issues and a possible solution", Proceedings of the 8th
international conference on Emerging networking
experiments and technologies, ACM , 2012.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc793>.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2104>.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3711>.
[RFC4043] Pinkas, D. and T. Gindin, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Permanent Identifier", RFC 4043,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4043, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4043>.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4086>.
[RFC5238] Phelan, T., "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) over
the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)",
RFC 5238, DOI 10.17487/RFC5238, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5238>.
[RFC5595] Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
(DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, DOI 10.17487/RFC5595,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5595>.
[RFC5596] Fairhurst, G., "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
(DCCP) Simultaneous-Open Technique to Facilitate NAT/
Middlebox Traversal", RFC 5596, DOI 10.17487/RFC5596,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5596>.
[RFC5597] Denis-Courmont, R., "Network Address Translation (NAT)
Behavioral Requirements for the Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol", BCP 150, RFC 5597,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5597, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5597>.
[RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
(SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6234>.
[RFC6356] Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and D. Wischik, "Coupled
Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols",
RFC 6356, DOI 10.17487/RFC6356, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6356>.
[RFC6773] Phelan, T., Fairhurst, G., and C. Perkins, "DCCP-UDP: A
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol UDP Encapsulation for
NAT Traversal", RFC 6773, DOI 10.17487/RFC6773, November
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6773>.
[RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
"TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6824>.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
[RFC6904] Lennox, J., "Encryption of Header Extensions in the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 6904,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6904, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6904>.
[RFC6951] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "UDP Encapsulation of Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host
to End-Host Communication", RFC 6951,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6951, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6951>.
[RFC7323] Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R.
Scheffenegger, Ed., "TCP Extensions for High Performance",
RFC 7323, DOI 10.17487/RFC7323, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7323>.
[RFC8041] Bonaventure, O., Paasch, C., and G. Detal, "Use Cases and
Operational Experience with Multipath TCP", RFC 8041,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8041, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8041>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8684] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Bonaventure, O., and C.
Paasch, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with
Multiple Addresses", RFC 8684, DOI 10.17487/RFC8684, March
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8684>.
[TS23.501] 3GPP, "System architecture for the 5G System; Stage 2;
Release 16", December 2020,
<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/
archive/23_series/23.501/23501-g70.zip>.
Appendix A. Differences from Multipath TCP
This appendix is Informative.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
Multipath DCCP is similar to Multipath TCP [RFC8684], in that it
extends the related basic DCCP transport protocol [RFC4340] with
multipath capabilities in the same way as Multipath TCP extends TCP
[RFC0793]. However, because of the differences between the
underlying TCP and DCCP protocols, the transport characteristics of
MPTCP and MP-DCCP are different.
Table 10 compares the protocol characteristics of TCP and DCCP, which
are by nature inherited by their respective multipath extensions. A
major difference lies in the delivery of payload, which is for TCP an
exact copy of the generated byte-stream. DCCP behaves in a different
way and does not guarantee to deliver any payload nor the order of
delivery. Since this is mainly affecting the receiving endpoint of a
TCP or DCCP communication, many similarities on the sender side can
be identified. Both transport protocols share the 3-way initiation
of a communication and both employ congestion control to adapt the
sending rate to the path characteristics.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
+=======================+=================+======================+
| Feature | TCP | DCCP |
+=======================+=================+======================+
| Full-Duplex | yes | yes |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Connection-Oriented | yes | yes |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Header option space | 40 bytes | < 1008 bytes or PMTU |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Data transfer | reliable | unreliable |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Packet-loss handling | re-transmission | report only |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Ordered data delivery | yes | no |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Sequence numbers | one per byte | one per PDU |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Flow control | yes | no |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Congestion control | yes | yes |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| ECN support | yes | yes |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Selective ACK | yes | depends on |
| | | congestion control |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Fix message | no | yes |
| boundaries | | |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Path MTU discovery | yes | yes |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Fragmentation | yes | no |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| SYN flood protection | yes | no |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Half-open connections | yes | no |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------------+
Table 10: TCP and DCCP protocol comparison
Consequently, the multipath features, shown in Table 11, are the
same, supporting volatile paths having varying capacity and latency,
session handover and path aggregation capabilities. All of them
profit by the existence of congestion control.
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
+==================+=======================+==========+
| Feature | MPTCP | MP-DCCP |
+==================+=======================+==========+
| Volatile paths | yes | yes |
+------------------+-----------------------+----------+
| Session handover | yes | yes |
+------------------+-----------------------+----------+
| Path aggregation | yes | yes |
+------------------+-----------------------+----------+
| Data reordering | yes | optional |
+------------------+-----------------------+----------+
| Expandability | limited by TCP header | flexible |
+------------------+-----------------------+----------+
Table 11: MPTCP and MP-DCCP protocol comparison
Therefore, the sender logic is not much different between MP-DCCP and
MPTCP.
The receiver side for MP-DCCP has to deal with the unreliable
delivery provided by DCCP. The multipath sequence numbers included
in MP-DCCP (see Section 4.2.5) facilitates adding optional mechanisms
for data stream packet reordering at the receiver. Information from
the MP_RTT multipath option (Section 4.2.7), DCCP path sequencing and
the DCCP Timestamp Option provide further means for advanced
reordering approaches, e.g., as proposed in
[I-D.amend-iccrg-multipath-reordering]. Such mechanisms do, however,
not affect interoperability and are not part of the MP-DCCP protocol.
Many applications that use unreliable transport protocols can also
inherently process out-of-sequence data (e.g., through adaptive audio
and video buffers), and so additional reordering support might not be
necessary. The addition of optional reordering mechanisms are likely
to be needed when the different DCCP subflows are routed across paths
with different latencies. In theory, applications using DCCP are
aware that packet reordering could occur, because DCCP does not
provide mechanisms to restore the original packet order.
In contrast to TCP, the receiver processing for MPTCP adopted a rigid
"just wait" approach, because TCP guarantees reliable in-order
delivery.
Authors' Addresses
Markus Amend (editor)
Deutsche Telekom
Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 9
64295 Darmstadt
Germany
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Multipath DCCP October 2023
Email: Markus.Amend@telekom.de
Anna Brunstrom
Karlstad University
Universitetsgatan 2
SE-651 88 Karlstad
Sweden
Email: anna.brunstrom@kau.se
Andreas Kassler
Karlstad University
Universitetsgatan 2
SE-651 88 Karlstad
Sweden
Email: andreas.kassler@kau.se
Veselin Rakocevic
City University of London
Northampton Square
London
United Kingdom
Email: veselin.rakocevic.1@city.ac.uk
Stephen Johnson
BT
Adastral Park
Martlesham Heath
IP5 3RE
United Kingdom
Email: stephen.h.johnson@bt.com
Amend, et al. Expires 14 April 2024 [Page 48]