Tunneling Internet protocols inside QUIC
draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-00
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 "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Maxime Piraux , Olivier Bonaventure | ||
| Last updated | 2019-11-04 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-piraux-intarea-quic-tunnel | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-00
QUIC Working Group M. Piraux, Ed.
Internet-Draft O. Bonaventure
Intended status: Experimental UCLouvain
Expires: May 7, 2020 November 04, 2019
Tunneling Internet protocols inside QUIC
draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-00
Abstract
This document specifies methods for tunneling Internet protocols such
as TCP, UDP, IP and QUIC inside a QUIC connection.
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). 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 May 7, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Reference environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. The datagram mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. The stream mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Connection establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Messages format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. QUIC tunnel stream TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1.1. TCP Connect TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1.2. TCP Extended Connect TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1.3. TCP Connect OK TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1.4. Error TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1.5. End TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Example flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Ingress Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.3. Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Registration of QUIC tunnel Identification String . . . 13
10.2. QUIC tunnel stream TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2.1. QUIC tunnel stream TLVs Types . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2.2. QUIC tunnel streams TLVs Error Types . . . . . . . . 14
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
Mobile devices such as laptops, smartphones or tablets have different
requirements than the traditional fixed devices. These mobile
devices often change their network attachment. They are often
attached to trusted networks, but sometimes they need to be connected
to untrusted networks where their communications can be eavesdropped,
filtered or modified. In these situations, the classical approach is
to rely on VPN protocols such as DTLS, TLS or IPSec. These VPN
protocols provide the encryption and authentication functions to
protect those mobile clients from malicious behaviors in untrusted
networks.
On the other hand, these devices are often multihomed and many expect
to be able to perform seamless handovers from one access network to
another without breaking the established VPN sessions. In some
situations it can also be beneficial to combine two or more access
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
networks together to increase the available host bandwidth. A
protocol such as Multipath TCP supports those handovers and allows
aggregating the bandwidth of different access links. It could be
combined with single-path VPN protocols to support both seamless
handovers and bandwidth aggregation above VPN tunnels.
Unfortunately, Multipath TCP is not yet deployed on most Internet
servers and thus few applications would benefit from such a use case.
The QUIC protocol opens up a new way to find a clean solution to this
problem. First, QUIC includes the same encryption and authentication
techniques as deployed VPN protocols. Second, QUIC is intended to be
widely used to support web-based services, making it unlikely to be
filtered in many networks, in contrast with VPN protocols. Third,
the multipath extensions proposed for QUIC enable it to efficiently
support both seamless handovers and bandwidth aggregation.
In this document, we explore how (Multipath) QUIC could be used to
enable multi-homed mobile devices to communicate securely in
untrusted networks. Section 3 describes the reference environment of
this document. Then, we explore and compare two different designs.
The first, explained in Section 4, uses the recently proposed
datagram extension ([I-D.pauly-quic-datagram]) for QUIC to transport
plain IP packets over a Multipath QUIC connection. The second,
explained in Section 5, uses the QUIC streams to transport TCP
bytestreams over a Multipath QUIC connection.
Section 6 specifies how a connection is established in this document
proposal. Section 7 specifies the format of the messages introduced
by this document. Section 8 contains example flows.
Our starting point for this work is Multipath QUIC that was initially
proposed in [CoNEXT]. A detailed specification of Multipath QUIC may
be found in [I-D.deconinck-quic-multipath]. Two implementations of
different versions of this protocol are available [CoNEXT],
[SIGCOMM19].
2. Conventions and Definitions
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.
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
3. Reference environment
We consider a multihomed client that is attached to one or several
access networks. It establishes a Multipath QUIC connection to a
concentrator. This MPQUIC connection is used to carry the UDP and
TCP packets sent by the client. Thanks to the security mechanisms
used by the Multipath QUIC connection, the client data is protected
against attacks in one or both of the access networks. The client
trusts the concentrator. The concentrator decrypts the QUIC packets
exchanged over the Multipath QUIC connection and interacts with the
remote hosts as a VPN concentrator would do.
+---------+
.----| Access |----.
| | network | |
v | A | |
+--------+ +---------- v +-------------+
| Multi | +--------------+ | Final |
| homed | | Concentrator |<===\ ... \===>| destination |
| client | +--------------+ | server |
+--------+ +---------+ ^ +-------------+
^ | Access | |
| | network | | Legend:
.----| B |----. --- Multipath QUIC subflow
+---------+ === TCP/UDP flow
Figure 1: Example environment
Figure 1 illustrates a client-initiated flow. We also discuss
inbound connections in this document in Section 6.
4. The datagram mode
Our first mode of operation, called the datagram mode in this
document, enables the client and the concentrator to exchange raw IP
packets through the Multipath QUIC connection. This is done by using
the recently proposed QUIC datagram extension
[I-D.pauly-quic-datagram]. In a nutshell, to send an IP packet to a
remote host, the client simply passes the entire packet as a datagram
to the Multipath QUIC connection established with the concentrator.
The IP packet is encoded in a QUIC DATAGRAM frame, then encrypted and
authenticated in a QUIC packet. This transmission is subject to
congestion control, but the datagram that contains the packet is not
retransmitted in case of losses as specified in
[I-D.pauly-quic-datagram]. The datagram mode is intended to provide
a similar service as the one provided by IPSec tunnels or DTLS.
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
,->+----------+
| | IP |
QUIC packet | +----------+
containing | | UDP |
a DATAGRAM | +----------+
frame | | QUIC |
| |..........|
| | DATAGRAM |
| |+--------+|<-.
| || IP || |
| |+--------+| | Tunneled
| || UDP || | UDP packet
| |+--------+| |
| | .... |<-.
`->+----------+
Figure 2: QUIC packet sent by the client when tunneling a UDP packet
Figure 2 illustrates how a UDP packet is tunneled using the datagram
mode. The main advantage of the datagram mode is that it supports IP
and any protocol above the network layer. Any IP packet can be
transported using the datagram extension over a Multipath QUIC
connection. However, this advantage comes with a large per-packet
overhead since each packet contains both a network and a transport
header. All these headers must be transmitted in addition with the
IP/UDP/QUIC headers of the Multipath QUIC connection. For TCP
connections for instance, the per-packet overhead can be large.
5. The stream mode
Since QUIC support multiple streams, another possibility to carry the
data exchanged over TCP connections between the client and the
concentrator is to transport the bytestream of each TCP connection as
one of the bidirectional streams of the Multipath QUIC connection.
For this, we base our approach on the 0-RTT Converter protocol
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-converters] that was proposed to ease the deployment
of TCP extensions. In a nutshell, it is an application proxy that
converts TCP connections, allowing the use of new TCP extensions
through an intermediate relay.
We use a similar approach in our stream mode. When a client opens a
stream, it sends at the beginning of the bytestream one or more TLV
messages indicating the IP address and port number of the remote
destination of the bytestream. Their format is detailed in section
Section 7.1. Upon reception of such a TLV message, the concentrator
opens a TCP connection towards the specified destination and connects
the incoming bytestream of the Multipath QUIC connection to the
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
bytestream of the new TCP connection (and similarly in the opposite
direction).
Figure 3 summarizes how the new TCP connection is mapped to the QUIC
stream. Actions and events of a TCP connection are translated to
action and events of a QUIC stream, so that a state transition of one
is translated to the other.
+------------------+-------------------------+
| TCP | QUIC Stream |
+------------------+-------------------------+
| SYN received | Open Stream, send TLVs |
| FIN received | Send Stream FIN |
| RST received | Send STOP_SENDING |
| | Send RESET_STREAM |
| Data received | Send Stream data |
+------------------+-------------------------+
+-------------------------------+------------+
| QUIC Stream | TCP |
+-------------------------------+------------+
| Stream opened, TLVs received | Send SYN |
| Stream FIN received | Send FIN |
| STOP_SENDING received | Send RST |
| RESET_STREAM received | Send RST |
| Stream data received | Send data |
+-------------------------------+------------+
Figure 3: TCP connection to QUIC stream mapping
The QUIC stream-level flow control can be tuned to match the receive
window size of the corresponding TCP, so that no excessive data needs
to be buffered.
6. Connection establishment
The client MUST establish a connection using the Multipath Extensions
defined in [I-D.deconinck-quic-multipath].
During connection establishment, the QUIC tunnel support is indicated
by setting the ALPN token "qt" in the TLS handshake. Draft-version
implementations MAY specify a particular draft version by suffixing
the token, e.g. "qt-00" refers to the first version of this document.
The concentrator can control the number of connections bytestreams
that can be opened initially by setting the initial_max_streams_bidi
QUIC transport parameter as defined in [I-D.ietf-quic-transport].
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
After the QUIC connection is established, the client can start using
the datagram or the stream mode. The client may use PCP [RFC6887] to
request the concentrator to accept inbound connections on their
behalf. After the negotiation of such port mappings, the
concentrator can start opening bidirectional streams to forward
inbound connections as well as sending IP packets containing inbound
UDP connections in QUIC datagrams.
7. Messages format
In the following sections, we specify the format of each message
introduced in this document. They are encoded as TLVs, i.e. (Type,
Length, Value) tuples, as illustrated in Figure 4. All TLV fields
are encoded in network-byte order.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (8) | Length (8) | [Value (*)] ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: QUIC tunnel TLV Format
The Type field is encoded as a byte and identifies the type of the
TLV. The Length field is encoded as a byte and indicate the length
of the Value field. A value of zero indicates that no Value field is
present. The Value field is a type-specific value whose length is
determined by the Length field.
7.1. QUIC tunnel stream TLVs
When using the stream mode, a one or more messages are used to
trigger and confirm the establishment of a connection towards the
final destination for a given stream. Those messages are exchanged
on this given QUIC stream before the TCP connection bytestream. This
section describes the format of these messages.
This document specifies the following QUIC tunnel stream TLVs:
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
+------+----------+-----------------------------+
| Type | Size | Name |
+------+----------+-----------------------------+
| 0x00 | 20 bytes | TCP Connect TLV |
| 0x01 | 38 bytes | TCP Extended Connect TLV |
| 0x02 | 2 bytes | TCP Connect OK TLV |
| 0x03 | Variable | Error TLV |
| 0xff | 2 bytes | End TLV |
+------+----------+-----------------------------+
Figure 5: QUIC tunnel stream TLVs
The TCP Connect TLV is used to establish a TCP connection through the
tunnel towards the final destination. The TCP Extended Connect TLV
allows indicating more information in the establishment request. The
TCP Connect OK TLV confirms the establishment of this TCP connection.
The Error TLV is used to indicate any out-of-band error that occurred
during the TCP connection establishment associated to the QUIC
stream. Finally, the End TLV marks the end of the series of TLVs and
the start of the bytestream on a given QUIC stream. These TLVs are
detailed in the following sections.
Offset 0 Offset 20 Offset 22
| | |
v v v
+-----------------+---------+----------------
Stream 0 | TCP Connect TLV | End TLV | TCP bytestream ...
+-----------------+---------+----------------
Figure 6: Example of use of QUIC tunnel stream TLVs
7.1.1. TCP Connect TLV
The TCP Connect TLV indicates the final destination of the TCP
connection associated to a given QUIC stream. The fields Remote Peer
Port and Remote Peer IP Address contain the destination port number
and IP address of the final destination.
The Remote Peer IP Address MUST be encoded as an IPv6 address. IPv4
addresses MUST be encoded using the IPv4-Mapped IPv6 Address format
defined in [RFC4291]. Further, the Remote Peer IP address field MUST
NOT include multicast, broadcast, and host loopback addresses
[RFC6890].
A QUIC tunnel peer MUST NOT send more than one TCP Connect TLV per
QUIC stream. A QUIC tunnel peer MUST NOT send a TCP Connect TLV if a
TCP Extended Connect TLV was previously sent on a given stream. A
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
QUIC tunnel peer MUST NOT send a TCP Connect TLV on non-self
initiated streams.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (8) | Length (8) | Remote Peer Port (16) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Remote Peer IP Address (128) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: TCP Connect TLV
7.1.2. TCP Extended Connect TLV
The TCP Extended Connect TLV is an extended version of the TCP
Connect TLV. It also indicates the source of the TCP connection.
The fields Remote Peer Port and Remote Peer IP Address contain the
destination port number and IP address of the final destination. The
fields Local Peer Port and Local Peer IP Address contain the source
port number and IP address of the source of the TCP connection.
The Remote (resp. Local) Peer IP Address MUST be encoded as an IPv6
address. IPv4 addresses MUST be encoded using the IPv4-Mapped IPv6
Address format defined in [RFC4291]. Further, the Remote (resp.
Local) Peer IP address field MUST NOT include multicast, broadcast,
and host loopback addresses [RFC6890].
A QUIC tunnel peer MUST NOT send more than one TCP Extended Connect
TLV per QUIC stream. A QUIC tunnel peer MUST NOT send a TCP Extended
Connect TLV if a TCP Connect TLV was previously sent on a given
stream. A QUIC tunnel peer MUST NOT send a TCP Extended Connect TLV
on non-self initiated streams.
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (8) | Length (8) | Remote Peer Port (16) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Remote Peer IP Address (128) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Peer Port (16) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Local Peer IP Address (128) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: TCP Extended Connect TLV
7.1.3. TCP Connect OK TLV
The TCP Connect OK TLV does not contain a value. Its presence
confirms the successful establishment of connection to the final
destination. A QUIC peer MUST NOT send a TCP Connect OK TLV on self-
initiated streams.
7.1.4. Error TLV
The Error TLV indicates out-of-band errors that occurred during the
establishment of the connection to the final destination. These
errors can be ICMP Destination Unreachable messages for instance. In
this case the ICMP packet received by the concentrator is copied
inside the Error Payload field.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (8) | Length (8) | Error Code (16) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| [Error Payload (*)] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Error TLV
The following bytestream-level error codes are defined in this
document:
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
+------+---------------------------+
| Code | Name |
+------+---------------------------+
| 0x0 | Protocol Violation |
| 0x1 | ICMP Packet Received |
| 0x2 | Malformed TLV |
| 0x3 | Network Failure |
+------+---------------------------+
Figure 10: Bytestream-level Error Codes
o Protocol Violation (0x0): A general error code for all non-
conforming behaviors encountered. A QUIC tunnel peer SHOULD use a
more specific error code when possible.
o ICMP Packet Received (0x1): This code indicates that the
concentrator received an ICMP packet while trying to create the
associated TCP connection. The Error Payload contains the packet.
o Malformed TLV (0x2): This code indicates that a received TLV was
not successfully parsed or formed. A peer receiving a Connect TLV
with an invalid IP address MUST send an Error TLV with this error
code.
o Network Failure (0x3): This codes indicates that a network failure
prevented the establishment of the connection.
After sending one or more Error TLVs, the sender MUST send an End TLV
and terminate the stream, i.e. set the FIN bit after the End TLV.
7.1.5. End TLV
The End TLV does not contain a value. Its existence signals the end
of the series of TLVs. The next byte in the QUIC stream after this
TLV is the start of the tunneled bytestream.
8. Example flows
This section illustrates the different messages described previously
and how they are used in a QUIC tunnel connection. For QUIC STREAM
frames, we use the following syntax: STREAM[ID, Stream Data [, FIN]].
The first element is the Stream ID, the second is the Stream Data
contained in the frame and the last one is optional and indicates
that the FIN bit is set.
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
Client Concentrator Final Destination
| STREAM[0, "TCP Connect, End"] || |
|------------------------------>|| SYN |
| ||==============================>|
| || SYN+ACK |
|STREAM[0,"TCP Connect OK, End"]||<==============================|
|<------------------------------|| |
| STREAM[0, "bytestream data"] || |
|------------------------------>|| bytestream data, ACK |
| ||==============================>|
| || bytestream data, ACK |
| STREAM[0, "bytestream data"] ||<==============================|
|<------------------------------|| FIN |
| STREAM[0, "", FIN] ||<==============================|
|<------------------------------|| ACK |
| STREAM[0, "", FIN] ||==============================>|
|------------------------------>|| FIN |
| ||==============================>|
| || ACK |
| ||<==============================|
Legend:
--- Multipath QUIC connection
=== TCP connection
Figure 11: Example flow for the stream mode
On Figure 11, the Client is initiating a TCP connection in stream
mode to the Final Destination. A request and a response are
exchanged, then the connection is torn down gracefully. A remote-
initiated connection accepted by the concentrator on behalf of the
client would have the order and the direction of all messages
reversed.
9. Security Considerations
9.1. Privacy
The Concentrator has access to all the packets it processes. It MUST
be protected as a core IP router, e.g. as specified in [RFC1812].
9.2. Ingress Filtering
Ingress filtering policies MUST be enforced at the network
boundaries, i.e. as specified in [RFC2827].
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
9.3. Denial of Service
There is a risk of an amplification attack when the Concentrator
sends a TCP SYN in response of a TCP Connect TLV. When a TCP SYN is
larger than the client request, the Concentrator amplifies the client
traffic. To mitigate such attacks, the Concentrator SHOULD rate
limit the number of pending TCP Connect from a given client.
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. Registration of QUIC tunnel Identification String
This document creates a new registration for the identification of
the QUIC tunnel protocol in the "Application Layer Protocol
Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs" registry established in [RFC7301].
The "qt" string identifies the QUIC tunnel protocol.
Protocol: QUIC tunnel
Identification Sequence: 0x71 0x74 ("qt")
Specification: This document
10.2. QUIC tunnel stream TLVs
IANA is requested to create a new "QUIC tunnel stream Parameters"
registry.
The following subsections detail new registries within "QUIC tunnel
stream Parameters" registry.
10.2.1. QUIC tunnel stream TLVs Types
IANA is request to create the "QUIC tunnel stream TLVs Types" sub-
registry. New values are assigned via IETF Review (Section 4.8 of
[RFC8126]).
The initial values to be assigned at the creation of the registry are
as follows:
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
+------+-----------------------------+------------+
| Code | Name | Reference |
+------+-----------------------------+------------+
| 0 | TCP Connect TLV | [This-Doc] |
| 1 | TCP Extended Connect TLV | [This-Doc] |
| 2 | TCP Connect OK TLV | [This-Doc] |
| 3 | Error TLV | [This-Doc] |
| 255 | End TLV | [This-Doc] |
+------+-----------------------------+------------+
10.2.2. QUIC tunnel streams TLVs Error Types
IANA is request to create the "QUIC tunnel stream TLVs Error Types"
sub-registry. New values are assigned via IETF Review (Section 4.8
of [RFC8126]).
The initial values to be assigned at the creation of the registry are
as follows:
+------+---------------------------+------------+
| Code | Name | Reference |
+------+---------------------------+------------+
| 0 | Protocol Violation | [This-Doc] |
| 1 | ICMP packet received | [This-Doc] |
| 2 | Malformed TLV | [This-Doc] |
| 3 | Network Failure | [This-Doc] |
+------+---------------------------+------------+
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[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/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman,
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153,
RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
[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/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References
[CoNEXT] De Coninck, Q. and O. Bonaventure, "Multipath QUIC: Design
and Evaluation", Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and
Technologies (CoNEXT 2017) , December 2017.
[I-D.deconinck-quic-multipath]
Coninck, Q. and O. Bonaventure, "Multipath Extensions for
QUIC (MP-QUIC)", draft-deconinck-quic-multipath-03 (work
in progress), August 2019.
[I-D.ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc]
Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and J.
Zuniga, "Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) and
fragmentation for LPWAN, application to UDP/IPv6", draft-
ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-22 (work in progress),
October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-23 (work
in progress), September 2019.
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-converters]
Bonaventure, O., Boucadair, M., Gundavelli, S., Seo, S.,
and B. Hesmans, "0-RTT TCP Convert Protocol", draft-ietf-
tcpm-converters-13 (work in progress), October 2019.
[I-D.pauly-quic-datagram]
Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable
Datagram Extension to QUIC", draft-pauly-quic-datagram-04
(work in progress), October 2019.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
[RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le,
K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, DOI 10.17487/RFC3095,
July 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3095>.
[RFC3843] Jonsson, L-E. and G. Pelletier, "RObust Header Compression
(ROHC): A Compression Profile for IP", RFC 3843,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3843, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3843>.
[RFC4019] Pelletier, G., "RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Profiles
for User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Lite", RFC 4019,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4019, April 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4019>.
[RFC4815] Jonsson, L-E., Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and P. Kremer,
"RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Corrections and
Clarifications to RFC 3095", RFC 4815,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4815, February 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4815>.
[RFC6846] Pelletier, G., Sandlund, K., Jonsson, L-E., and M. West,
"RObust Header Compression (ROHC): A Profile for TCP/IP
(ROHC-TCP)", RFC 6846, DOI 10.17487/RFC6846, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6846>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.
[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/info/rfc8126>.
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2019
[SIGCOMM19]
De Coninck, Q., Michel, F., Piraux, M., Given-Wilson, T.,
Legay, A., Pereira, O., and O. Bonaventure, "Pluginizing
QUIC", Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on
Data Communication , August 2019.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Quentin De Coninck and Francois Michel for their comments
and the proofreading of the first version of this document. Thanks
to Gregory Vander Schueren for his comments on the first version of
this document.
Authors' Addresses
Maxime Piraux (editor)
UCLouvain
Email: maxime.piraux@uclouvain.be
Olivier Bonaventure
UCLouvain
Email: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be
Piraux & Bonaventure Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 17]