User Ports for Experiments
draft-ietf-tsvwg-usr-exp-10

TSVWG                                                           J. Touch
Internet Draft                                    Independent Consultant
Updates: 4727
Intended status: Standards Track                            May 18, 2025
Expires: November 2025

                        User Ports for Experiments
                       draft-ietf-tsvwg-usr-exp-10.txt

Abstract

   This document defines user ports for experiments using transport
   protocols. It describes the use of experiment identifiers to enable
   shared use of these user ports. It also updates RFC 4727 to
   recommend the use of these experimental identifiers for the system
   ports for experiments in the same manner.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   https://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   https://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   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 November 18, 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

Touch                  Expires November 18, 2025                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        User Ports for Experiments                May 2025

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://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 ..................................................2
   2. Conventions used in this document .............................3
   3. User Ports for Experiments ....................................3
   4. Protocol Experiment Identifiers (PExIDs) ......................3
   5. Using PExIDs in Transport Protocols ...........................4
      5.1. SCTP and DCCP PExID Use ..................................5
      5.2. PExID Coordination During State Negotiation ..............6
   6. PExID Interactions with Other Protocols and Mechanisms ........6
   7. Security Considerations .......................................7
   8. IANA Considerations ...........................................7
   9. References ....................................................9
      9.1. Normative References .....................................9
      9.2. Informative References ..................................10
   10. Acknowledgments .............................................11

1. Introduction

   Various network codepoints have been allocated for experimental use,
   including those for IPv4 [RFC791], IPv6 [RFC8200], ICMPv4 [RFC792],
   ICMPv6 [RFC4443], UDP [RFC768], and TCP [RFC9293]. These include
   transport protocol port numbers 1021 and 1022, using the service
   names "EXP1" and "EXP2" [RFC4727].

   There has always been an expectation that experiments needing
   privileged (system) ports use these assignments and unprivileged
   ports use those from the dynamic range [RFC6335][RFC7605]. However,
   dynamic ports can be difficult to reserve in some systems or blocked
   from traversing some firewalls. As a consequence, there is a need
   for non-privileged, non-dynamic ports - i.e., user ports - for
   experiments.

   This document reserves user ports for experimentation and describes
   the use of experiment identifiers to differentiate shared use of
   these ports for concurrent experiments. This document also creates a

Touch                  Expires November 18, 2025                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        User Ports for Experiments                May 2025

   PExID registry, in addition to the IANA service names and ports
   registry [SP-reg], to reduce the potential that experimental uses of
   PExIDs that could be tested in the public Internet might interfere
   with each other.

   This document updates RFC 4727 by adding the following text to
   section 1:

      "[IANA-THIS-RFC] defines PExIDs that are that are recommended for
     services that might not qualify for a port assignment per current
     requirements in [RFC6335] and [RFC7605] because they are either
     short-term or need more than one port number during development
     (see Sec. 7.1 of [RFC7605])."

2. Conventions used in this document

   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.

3. User Ports for Experiments

   The system, user, and dynamic port ranges vary in their properties
   [RFC7605]. System ports often include privileged access, sometimes
   known as 'root'. Dynamic ports are used as client ports when
   establishing associations with services on registered ports. User
   ports have neither privilege nor the risk of use by other
   connections. User ports are also more likely to allow configuration
   to pass through firewalls, where system and dynamic ports can be
   difficult to 'un-block'.

   This document registers USR-EXP1 and USR-EXP2 for user port
   experiments, using port numbers #UPORT1 and #UPORT2. These ports are
   assigned from the user range, allowing non-privileged experiments
   without the need to use ports from the dynamic range. They are
   intended to complement the system ports already assigned for
   experimental use [RFC4727].

4. Protocol Experiment Identifiers (PExIDs)

   This document also creates a registry for port experiment
   identifiers (PExIDs), in the same manner as the registry created for
   shared TCP option experiments [RFC6994][TCP-reg]. These PExIDs are
   intended for services that might not qualify for a port assignment
   per current requirements in [RFC6335] and [RFC7605] because they are

Touch                  Expires November 18, 2025                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft        User Ports for Experiments                May 2025

   either short-term or need more than one port number during
   development (see Sec. 7.1 of [RFC7605]). Such is the case for
   student projects that operate over the public Internet and/or across
   firewalls. Additionally, although selection of a random PExID might
   suffice, the bar for PExID registration is low (first-come, first
   served) and encouraged.

   The PExID approach is inspired by the ExID method for sharing
   experimental option codepoints, originally developed for TCP
   [RFC6994] and later applied to UDP [TH25]. That method could be
   applied here, but requires OS support, whereas the PExID is used in
   the data path and requires no OS modification. This method could be
   applied to sharing other codepoints, e.g., protocol options and
   codes, but that is outside the scope of this document.

   Experimenters are encouraged to register PExIDs with IANA and to
   include them at the beginning of their transport data, i.e., at the
   front of each separate message or byte stream, as a 32-bit unsigned
   integer in network standard byte order. The use of PExIDs helps
   differentiate experiments without the need for additional port
   assignments.

   This document also encourages the use of these PExIDs for
   experiments using existing experiment ports, i.e., system ports EXP1
   and EXP2.

   PExIDs differentiate experiments but are not intended to be specific
   to a given experiment port, whether system or user, so a single
   registration is used for all experiment ports. It is the
   responsibility of the experimenter to determine which port(s) each
   experiment uses.

   The remainder of this document focuses on the issues associated with
   using PExIDs.

5. Using PExIDs in Transport Protocols

   PExIDs differentiate use of the experiment transport ports, both for
   TCP as previously assigned [RFC4727] and for other transports as
   defined in this document.

   PExIDs are intended to be placed in network-standard byte order at
   the beginning of each independent transport data payload.

   For connection-oriented transport protocols, such as TCP [RFC9293],
   SCTP [RFC9260], and DCCP [RFC4340], the PExID is typically sent once
   for each connection at the beginning of the user transfer and echoed

Touch                  Expires November 18, 2025                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft        User Ports for Experiments                May 2025

   upon receipt, enabling both ends to confirm the experiment for the
   connection's socket pair. That socket pair is then associated with
   the experiment identified by that PExID for the duration of the
   connection.

   For connectionless transport protocols, such as UDP [RFC768], the
   PExID is typically included at the beginning of every message in
   both directions.

   In most cases, the PExID is sent as user data. SCTP is one
   exception, because of its Payload Protocol Identifier (PPID), as
   discussed further in Section 5.1. Alternately, PExID can be
   confirmed during the connection or security handshake or other
   transport header, as discussed in Section 5.2. In other cases, the
   PExID can be transferred elsewhere in the data stream, as specified
   by the user application.

   Two endpoints can engage in multiple experiments using the same
   experimental port number and transport protocol. In such cases,
   users are expected to support demultiplexing of those different
   experiments using the PExID.

5.1. SCTP and DCCP PExID Use

   SCTP and DCCP connections can use self-assigned Private service
   codes, which provide experimental-use identification
   [RFC4340][RFC5595]. There is thus no need to use PExIDs to
   differentiate experiments on the same port number. PExIDs can be
   used in addition to those codes if desired, notably in developing a
   single application-layer solution for multiple transport protocols.

   SCTP also includes a Payload Protocol Identifier (PPID), which
   identifies the information within each user message. PPIDs are
   assigned on a first-come, first-served (FCFS) basis and are abundant
   (2^32 codepoints), so there is no need for a separate experimental-
   use PPID. The PExID differentiate shared use of the user
   experimental port number and thus serves a different purpose than
   the PPID; both can be used together or separately for SCTP.

   Because SCTP supports multiple concurrent streams, it is useful for
   experiments using PExIDs to be identified in a particular stream
   before proceeding with other streams, to avoid excessive buffering.
   For SCTP using only PExIDs for that purpose, users SHOULD send the
   PExID ordered and reliably as the first user message using PPID of
   #PPID1 in stream 0 (the default stream). Until the PExID user
   message is echoed back on stream 0, user messages on stream 0 SHOULD
   be sent ordered and the user SHOULD avoid transmitting user messages

Touch                  Expires November 18, 2025                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft        User Ports for Experiments                May 2025

   on other streams. The echoed user message SHOULD use the PPID of
   #PPID1 assigned for this purpose. That PExID user message MUST
   contain only the PExID as a 32-bit unsigned integer in network
   standard byte order.

5.2. PExID Coordination During State Negotiation

   For stateful associations, the PExID can be indicated during the
   initial state negotiation of the transport or security protocol. For
   TCP, SCTP, DCCP, QUIC [RFC9000], these could be indicated using
   parameters of the initial connection handshake, e.g, as transport
   options. For UDP, a similar mechanism could be used on each packet
   if UDP options are supported [TH25]. In all cases (TCP, SCTP, DCCP,
   QUIC, UDP), no option type is currently assigned for this purpose.
   Additionally, these options would be available only after assigned
   and deployed, whereas the mechanism defined here is available
   without needing any OS modification.

   A similar mechanism is available within both TLS and DTLS, providing
   extensions to negotiating additional security association parameters
   [RFC8446][RFC9147]. In both protocols, the PExID could be sent in
   ClientHello requests and echoed in ServerHello responses, although
   for these protocols the extension would require two fields (because
   such fields carry only 16 bits of content and two are needed for the
   32-bit PExID).

   In all the above cases, the details of such a mechanism are outside
   the scope of this document and would require additional IANA
   codepoint assignments. They are not generally anticipated because
   such mechanisms are more difficult to deploy, hampering the very
   experimentation this mechanism is intended to foster.

6. PExID Interactions with Other Protocols and Mechanisms

   PExIDs help differentiate different uses of the same experimental
   transport port number using data outside the transport header, and
   thus would not be supported by existing NATs, firewalls, deep-packet
   inspectors (DPIs), or service function chaining [RFC7665]. These
   devices would need to be modified to detect the PExID, either at the
   beginning of the connection (for connection-oriented uses) or within
   each data payload (for connectionless uses).

   Some methods to traverse tunnels are also affected by the use of
   PExIDs. STUN uses a method similar to PExIDs in its in-band message
   identifier [RFC8489]. These identifiers begin with a 32-bit field
   first two bits are "00", followed by a type and length, followed by
   a 32-bit 'magic number' of 0x2112A442, followed by a 96-bit

Touch                  Expires November 18, 2025                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft        User Ports for Experiments                May 2025

   transaction identifier. PExIDs are similar to the transaction
   identifier, but would occur earlier in the data stream.

   The TURN mechanism for NAT traversal does not interact with use of
   PExIDs [RFC8656]. The STUN mechanism can be used concurrent with
   PExIDs if the PExIDs are selected where the two highest bits are
   something other than "00" (as required in STUN messages). Because
   not all service or protocols are intended to be used concurrent with
   STUN, this restricting should not be a concern.

   Some protocols use "magic bytes" to identify streams and/or
   messages. PExIDs are a specific interpretation of the first for
   magic bytes of each stream or message to demultiplex shared use of
   the experimental transport ports, thus they would not necessarily be
   compatible with other concurrent use of magic bytes.

7. Security Considerations

   The creation of new ports for experiment purposes does not create
   any new security considerations. At best, it potentially reduces the
   use of privileged system ports for such experiments, which avoids
   the associated risk of unnecessary privileged access.

   Like conventional transport protocol port numbers, PExIDs can be
   used for DPI to identify services and protocols (see Sec. 5.3.1 of
   [RFC6973]). When such information is intended to be protected or
   private, it can be sent as user data inside an encrypted stream or
   message, e.g., as user data in TCP/TLS or UDP/DTLS.

   PExIDs are not supported by existing firewalls, DPI devices, IPsec
   traffic selectors or other systems that demultiplex or identify
   traffic using transport port numbers. Traffic using the same
   transport port numbers would be treated the same if the PExID were
   not included in the filter, which could either inadvertently admit
   or deny access. Care should be taken when to avoid PExID use with
   the same experimental port number when different filtering is
   expected.

   Experimenters are encouraged to include security in any new
   experiment, regardless of port (per Section 7.4 of [RFC7605]).

8. IANA Considerations

   This document hereby requests the assignment of two user ports for
   experimental purposes below. IANA is asked to replace instances of
   #UPORT1 and #UPORT2 throughout this document based on the actual

Touch                  Expires November 18, 2025                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft        User Ports for Experiments                May 2025

   allocation. This paragraph is intended to be removed prior to final
   publication.

   This document also hereby requests the assignment of the SCTP PPID
   "PEXID" for use in association with these port numbers. IANA is
   asked to replace instances of #PPID1 throughout this document based
   on the actual allocation. This paragraph is intended to be removed
   prior to final publication.

   IANA has assigned the following user ports for experiments:

         Service Name            USR-EXP1

         Transport Protocol(s)   TCP, UDP, DCCP, and SCTP

         Assignee                IESG

         Contact                 IETF Chair

         Description             RFC[TBD-rfc]-style Experiment

         Reference               RFC [TBD-rfc]

         Port Number             #UPORT1 (requesting 1031)

         Service Code            none - use private use service codes

         Known Unauthorized Uses none

         Assignment Notes        Intended for use with PExIDs only

   And:

         Service Name            USR-EXP2

         Transport Protocol(s)   TCP, UDP, DCCP, and SCTP

         Assignee                IESG

         Contact                 IETF Chair

         Description             RFC[TBD-rfc]-style Experiment

         Reference               RFC [TBD-rfc]

         Port Number             #UPORT2 (requesting 1032)

Touch                  Expires November 18, 2025                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft        User Ports for Experiments                May 2025

         Service Code            none - use private use service codes

         Known Unauthorized Uses none

         Assignment Notes        Intended for use with PExIDs only

   IANA has assigned the following SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier
   (PPID) for experiments associated with these port numbers:

      SCTP PPID #PPID1

   This document directs IANA to create a "Port Experimental Option
   Experiment Identifiers (PExIDs)" registry linked under the IANA
   ports registry [SP-reg], using the same format and structure as the
   TCP option ID registry [TCP-reg].  The registry records PExIDs as
   32-bit unsigned integers, including a brief description, document
   pointer if available, assignee name, and e-mail contact for each
   entry. Once registered, PExIDs can be used with either the system
   (EXP1, EXP2) or user (USR-EXP1, USR-EXP2) ports and with any
   transport protocol. This registry has no initial entries.

   Entries are assigned on a First Come, First Served (FCFS) basis
   [RFC8126]. IANA will also record known duplicate uses to assist the
   community in both debugging assigned uses as well as correcting
   unauthorized duplicate uses.

   IANA should impose no requirements on making a registration request
   other than indicating the desired codepoint and providing a point of
   contact. A short description or acronym for the use is desired but
   not required.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,
             ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers," RFC 4727, Nov. 2026.

   [RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
             Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
             Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
             Transport Protocol Port Number Registry," BCP 165, RFC
             6335, Aug. 2011.

Touch                  Expires November 18, 2025                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft        User Ports for Experiments                May 2025

   [RFC6994] Touch, J., "Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options," RFC
             6994, Aug. 2013.

   [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
             Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
             RFC 8126, June 2017.

   [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
             2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, May 2017.

9.2. Informative References

   [RFC768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol," STD 6, RFC 768, Aug.
             1980.

   [RFC791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol," STD 5, RFC 791, Sep.
             1981.

   [RFC792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol," STD 5,
             RFC 792, Sep. 1981.

   [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
             Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)," RFC 4340, March 2006.

   [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, (Ed.), "Internet
             Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
             Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification," STD 89, RFC
             4443, Mar. 2006.

   [RFC5595] Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
             (DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, September 2009.

   [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
             Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
             Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
             2013.

   [RFC7605] Touch, J., "Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport
             Port Numbers," BCP 165, RFC 7605, Aug. 2015.

   [RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
             Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, October 2015.

   [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
             (IPv6) Specification," STD 86, RFC 8200, Jul. 2017.

Touch                  Expires November 18, 2025               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft        User Ports for Experiments                May 2025

   [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
             VerREsion 1.3", RFC 8446, Aug. 2018.

   [RFC8489] Petit-Huguenin, M., Salgueiro, G., Rosenberg, J., Wing,
             D., Mahy, R., and P. Matthews, "Session Traversal
             Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 8489, February 2020.

   [RFC8656] Reddy, T., Ed., Johnston, A., Ed., Matthews, P., and J.
             Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN):
             Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT
             (STUN)", RFC 8656, February 2020,

   [RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed., and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
             Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, May 2021.

   [RFC9147] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
             Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
             1.3", RFC 9147, April 2022.

   [RFC9260] Stewart, R. (Ed.), "Stream Control Transmission Protocol,"
             RFC 9260, Sep. 2007.

   [RFC9293] Eddy, W. (Ed.), "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), Aug.
             STD 7, RFC 9293, 2022.

   [SP-reg]  Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry,
             https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-
             numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml

   [TCP-reg] TCP Option ID registry,
             https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-
             parameters.xhtml#tcp-exids

   [TH25]    Touch, J, C. Heard (Ed.), "Transport Options for UDP",
             draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options, Mar. 2025.

10. Acknowledgments

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

Authors' Addresses

   Joe Touch
   Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 USA
   Phone: +1 (310) 560-0334
   Email: touch@strayalpha.com

Touch                  Expires November 18, 2025               [Page 11]