QUIC                                                             M. Duke
Internet-Draft                                         F5 Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                                N. Banks
Expires: 7 April 2022                                          Microsoft
                                                          4 October 2021


            QUIC-LB: Generating Routable QUIC Connection IDs
                   draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-08

Abstract

   The QUIC protocol design is resistant to transparent packet
   inspection, injection, and modification by intermediaries.  However,
   the server can explicitly cooperate with network services by agreeing
   to certain conventions and/or sharing state with those services.
   This specification provides a standardized means of solving three
   problems: (1) maintaining routability to servers via a low-state load
   balancer even when the connection IDs in use change; (2) explicit
   encoding of the connection ID length in all packets to assist
   hardware accelerators; and (3) injection of QUIC Retry packets by an
   anti-Denial-of-Service agent on behalf of the server.

Note to Readers

   Discussion of this document takes place on the QUIC Working Group
   mailing list (quic@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/
   (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/).

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/quicwg/load-balancers (https://github.com/quicwg/
   load-balancers).

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."



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 April 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Protocol Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  Simplicity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  First CID octet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  Config Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Configuration Failover  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  Length Self-Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Load Balancing Preliminaries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Unroutable Connection IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Fallback Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Server ID Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.3.1.  Static Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.3.2.  Dynamic Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.4.  CID format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Routing Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.1.  Plaintext CID Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       5.1.1.  Configuration Agent Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       5.1.2.  Load Balancer Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       5.1.3.  Server Actions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.2.  Stream Cipher CID Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       5.2.1.  Configuration Agent Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       5.2.2.  Load Balancer Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       5.2.3.  Server Actions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.3.  Block Cipher CID Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       5.3.1.  Configuration Agent Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       5.3.2.  Load Balancer Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


       5.3.3.  Server Actions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   6.  ICMP Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  Retry Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.1.  Common Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       7.1.1.  Considerations for Non-Initial Packets  . . . . . . .  20
     7.2.  No-Shared-State Retry Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       7.2.1.  Configuration Agent Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       7.2.2.  Service Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       7.2.3.  Server Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     7.3.  Shared-State Retry Service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       7.3.1.  Token Protection with AEAD  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       7.3.2.  Configuration Agent Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.3.3.  Service Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.3.4.  Server Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   8.  Configuration Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   9.  Additional Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     9.1.  Load balancer chains  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     9.2.  Moving connections between servers  . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   10. Version Invariance of QUIC-LB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     11.1.  Attackers not between the load balancer and server . . .  32
     11.2.  Attackers between the load balancer and server . . . . .  32
     11.3.  Multiple Configuration IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     11.4.  Limited configuration scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     11.5.  Stateless Reset Oracle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     11.6.  Connection ID Entropy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     11.7.  Shared-State Retry Keys  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     11.8.  Resource Consumption of the SID table  . . . . . . . . .  35
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   Appendix A.  QUIC-LB YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     A.1.  Tree Diagram  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
   Appendix B.  Load Balancer Test Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
     B.1.  Plaintext Connection ID Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
     B.2.  Stream Cipher Connection ID Algorithm . . . . . . . . . .  44
     B.3.  Block Cipher Connection ID Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . .  46
     B.4.  Shared State Retry Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
   Appendix C.  Interoperability with DTLS over UDP  . . . . . . . .  46
     C.1.  DTLS 1.0 and 1.2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
     C.2.  DTLS 1.3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
     C.3.  Future Versions of DTLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
   Appendix D.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
   Appendix E.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
     E.1.  since draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-07 . . . . . . . . .  49
     E.2.  since draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-06 . . . . . . . . .  49
     E.3.  since draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-05 . . . . . . . . .  49



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


     E.4.  since draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-04 . . . . . . . . .  49
     E.5.  since-draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-03 . . . . . . . . .  50
     E.6.  since-draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-02 . . . . . . . . .  50
     E.7.  since-draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-01 . . . . . . . . .  50
     E.8.  since-draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-00 . . . . . . . . .  50
     E.9.  Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-06 . . . . . . . . .  50
     E.10. Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-05 . . . . . . . . .  50
     E.11. Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-04 . . . . . . . . .  51
     E.12. Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-03 . . . . . . . . .  51
     E.13. Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-02 . . . . . . . . .  51
     E.14. Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-01 . . . . . . . . .  51
     E.15. Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-00 . . . . . . . . .  51
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51

1.  Introduction

   QUIC packets [RFC9000] usually contain a connection ID to allow
   endpoints to associate packets with different address/port 4-tuples
   to the same connection context.  This feature makes connections
   robust in the event of NAT rebinding.  QUIC endpoints usually
   designate the connection ID which peers use to address packets.
   Server-generated connection IDs create a potential need for out-of-
   band communication to support QUIC.

   QUIC allows servers (or load balancers) to designate an initial
   connection ID to encode useful routing information for load
   balancers.  It also encourages servers, in packets protected by
   cryptography, to provide additional connection IDs to the client.
   This allows clients that know they are going to change IP address or
   port to use a separate connection ID on the new path, thus reducing
   linkability as clients move through the world.

   There is a tension between the requirements to provide routing
   information and mitigate linkability.  Ultimately, because new
   connection IDs are in protected packets, they must be generated at
   the server if the load balancer does not have access to the
   connection keys.  However, it is the load balancer that has the
   context necessary to generate a connection ID that encodes useful
   routing information.  In the absence of any shared state between load
   balancer and server, the load balancer must maintain a relatively
   expensive table of server-generated connection IDs, and will not
   route packets correctly if they use a connection ID that was
   originally communicated in a protected NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame.

   This specification provides common algorithms for encoding the server
   mapping in a connection ID given some shared parameters.  The mapping
   is generally only discoverable by observers that have the parameters,
   preserving unlinkability as much as possible.



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   Aside from load balancing, a QUIC server may also desire to offload
   other protocol functions to trusted intermediaries.  These
   intermediaries might include hardware assist on the server host
   itself, without access to fully decrypted QUIC packets.  For example,
   this document specifies a means of offloading stateless retry to
   counter Denial of Service attacks.  It also proposes a system for
   self-encoding connection ID length in all packets, so that crypto
   offload can consistently look up key information.

   While this document describes a small set of configuration parameters
   to make the server mapping intelligible, the means of distributing
   these parameters between load balancers, servers, and other trusted
   intermediaries is out of its scope.  There are numerous well-known
   infrastructures for distribution of configuration.

1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS.  Lower case uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying significance described in RFC 2119.

   In this document, "client" and "server" refer to the endpoints of a
   QUIC connection unless otherwise indicated.  A "load balancer" is an
   intermediary for that connection that does not possess QUIC
   connection keys, but it may rewrite IP addresses or conduct other IP
   or UDP processing.  A "configuration agent" is the entity that
   determines the QUIC-LB configuration parameters for the network and
   leverages some system to distribute that configuration.

   Note that stateful load balancers that act as proxies, by terminating
   a QUIC connection with the client and then retrieving data from the
   server using QUIC or another protocol, are treated as a server with
   respect to this specification.

   For brevity, "Connection ID" will often be abbreviated as "CID".

1.2.  Notation

   All wire formats will be depicted using the notation defined in
   Section 1.3 of [RFC9000].  There is one addition: the function len()
   refers to the length of a field which can serve as a limit on a
   different field, so that the lengths of two fields can be concisely
   defined as limited to a sum, for example:




Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   x(A..B) y(C..B-len(x))

   indicates that x can be of any length between A and B, and y can be
   of any length between C and B provided that (len(x) + len(y)) does
   not exceed B.

   The example below illustrates the basic framework:

Example Structure {
  One-bit Field (1),
  7-bit Field with Fixed Value (7) = 61,
  Field with Variable-Length Integer (i),
  Arbitrary-Length Field (..),
  Variable-Length Field (8..24),
  Variable-Length Field with Dynamic Limit (8..24-len(Variable-Length Field)),
  Field With Minimum Length (16..),
  Field With Maximum Length (..128),
  [Optional Field (64)],
  Repeated Field (8) ...,
}

                       Figure 1: Example Format

2.  Protocol Objectives

2.1.  Simplicity

   QUIC is intended to provide unlinkability across connection
   migration, but servers are not required to provide additional
   connection IDs that effectively prevent linkability.  If the
   coordination scheme is too difficult to implement, servers behind
   load balancers using connection IDs for routing will use trivially
   linkable connection IDs.  Clients will therefore be forced to choose
   between terminating the connection during migration or remaining
   linkable, subverting a design objective of QUIC.

   The solution should be both simple to implement and require little
   additional infrastructure for cryptographic keys, etc.

2.2.  Security

   In the limit where there are very few connections to a pool of
   servers, no scheme can prevent the linking of two connection IDs with
   high probability.  In the opposite limit, where all servers have many
   connections that start and end frequently, it will be difficult to
   associate two connection IDs even if they are known to map to the
   same server.




Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   QUIC-LB is relevant in the region between these extremes: when the
   information that two connection IDs map to the same server is helpful
   to linking two connection IDs.  Obviously, any scheme that
   transparently communicates this mapping to outside observers
   compromises QUIC's defenses against linkability.

   Though not an explicit goal of the QUIC-LB design, concealing the
   server mapping also complicates attempts to focus attacks on a
   specific server in the pool.

3.  First CID octet

   The first octet of a Connection ID is reserved for two special
   purposes, one mandatory (config rotation) and one optional (length
   self-description).

   Subsequent sections of this document refer to the contents of this
   octet as the "first octet."

3.1.  Config Rotation

   The first two bits of any connection ID MUST encode an identifier for
   the configuration that the connection ID uses.  This enables
   incremental deployment of new QUIC-LB settings (e.g., keys).

   When new configuration is distributed to servers, there will be a
   transition period when connection IDs reflecting old and new
   configuration coexist in the network.  The rotation bits allow load
   balancers to apply the correct routing algorithm and parameters to
   incoming packets.

   Configuration Agents SHOULD deliver new configurations to load
   balancers before doing so to servers, so that load balancers are
   ready to process CIDs using the new parameters when they arrive.

   A Configuration Agent SHOULD NOT use a codepoint to represent a new
   configuration until it takes precautions to make sure that all
   connections using CIDs with an old configuration at that codepoint
   have closed or transitioned.

   Servers MUST NOT generate new connection IDs using an old
   configuration after receiving a new one from the configuration agent.
   Servers MUST send NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames that provide CIDs using
   the new configuration, and retire CIDs using the old configuration
   using the "Retire Prior To" field of that frame.






Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   It also possible to use these bits for more long-lived distinction of
   different configurations, but this has privacy implications (see
   Section 11.3).

3.2.  Configuration Failover

   If a server has not received a valid QUIC-LB configuration, and
   believes that low-state, Connection-ID aware load balancers are in
   the path, it SHOULD generate connection IDs with the config rotation
   bits set to '11' and SHOULD use the "disable_active_migration"
   transport parameter in all new QUIC connections.  It SHOULD NOT send
   NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames with new values.

   A load balancer that sees a connection ID with config rotation bits
   set to '11' MUST revert to 5-tuple routing.

3.3.  Length Self-Description

   Local hardware cryptographic offload devices may accelerate QUIC
   servers by receiving keys from the QUIC implementation indexed to the
   connection ID.  However, on physical devices operating multiple QUIC
   servers, it is impractical to efficiently lookup these keys if the
   connection ID does not self-encode its own length.

   Note that this is a function of particular server devices and is
   irrelevant to load balancers.  As such, load balancers MAY omit this
   from their configuration.  However, the remaining 6 bits in the first
   octet of the Connection ID are reserved to express the length of the
   following connection ID, not including the first octet.

   A server not using this functionality SHOULD make the six bits appear
   to be random.

3.4.  Format

   First Octet {
     Config Rotation (2),
     CID Len or Random Bits (6),
   }

                        Figure 2: First Octet Format

   The first octet has the following fields:

   Config Rotation: Indicates the configuration used to interpret the
   CID.





Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   CID Len or Random Bits: Length Self-Description (if applicable), or
   random bits otherwise.  Encodes the length of the Connection ID
   following the First Octet.

4.  Load Balancing Preliminaries

   In QUIC-LB, load balancers do not generate individual connection IDs
   for servers.  Instead, they communicate the parameters of an
   algorithm to generate routable connection IDs.

   The algorithms differ in the complexity of configuration at both load
   balancer and server.  Increasing complexity improves obfuscation of
   the server mapping.

   This section describes three participants: the configuration agent,
   the load balancer, and the server.  For any given QUIC-LB
   configuration that enables connection-ID-aware load balancing, there
   must be a choice of (1) routing algorithm, (2) server ID allocation
   strategy, and (3) algorithm parameters.

   Fundamentally, servers generate connection IDs that encode their
   server ID.  Load balancers decode the server ID from the CID in
   incoming packets to route to the correct server.

   There are situations where a server pool might be operating two or
   more routing algorithms or parameter sets simultaneously.  The load
   balancer uses the first two bits of the connection ID to multiplex
   incoming DCIDs over these schemes (see Section 3.1).

4.1.  Unroutable Connection IDs

   QUIC-LB servers will generate Connection IDs that are decodable to
   extract a server ID in accordance with a specified algorithm and
   parameters.  However, QUIC often uses client-generated Connection IDs
   prior to receiving a packet from the server.

   These client-generated CIDs might not conform to the expectations of
   the routing algorithm and therefore not be routable by the load
   balancer.  Those that are not routable are "unroutable DCIDs" and
   receive similar treatment regardless of why they're unroutable:

   *  The config rotation bits (Section 3.1) may not correspond to an
      active configuration.  Note: a packet with a DCID that indicates
      5-tuple routing (see Section 3.2) is always routable.

   *  The DCID might not be long enough for the decoder to process.





Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   *  The extracted server mapping might not correspond to an active
      server.

   All other DCIDs are routable.

   Load balancers MUST forward packets with routable DCIDs to a server
   in accordance with the chosen routing algorithm.

   Load balancers SHOULD drop short header packets with unroutable
   DCIDs.

   The routing of long headers with unroutable DCIDs depends on the
   server ID allocation strategy, described in Section 4.3.  However,
   the load balancer MUST NOT drop these packets, with one exception.

   Load balancers MAY drop packets with long headers and unroutable
   DCIDs if and only if it knows that the encoded QUIC version does not
   allow an unroutable DCID in a packet with that signature.  For
   example, a load balancer can safely drop a QUIC version 1 Handshake
   packet with an unroutable DCID, as a version 1 Handshake packet sent
   to a QUIC-LB routable server will always have a server-generated
   routable CID.  The prohibition against dropping packets with long
   headers remains for unknown QUIC versions.

   Furthermore, while the load balancer function MUST NOT drop packets,
   the device might implement other security policies, outside the scope
   of this specification, that might force a drop.

   Servers that receive packets with unroutable CIDs MUST use the
   available mechanisms to induce the client to use a routable CID in
   future packets.  In QUIC version 1, this requires using a routable
   CID in the Source CID field of server-generated long headers.

4.2.  Fallback Algorithms

   There are conditions described below where a load balancer routes a
   packet using a "fallback algorithm."  It can choose any algorithm,
   without coordination with the servers, but the algorithm SHOULD be
   deterministic over short time scales so that related packets go to
   the same server.  The design of this algorithm SHOULD consider the
   version-invariant properties of QUIC described in [RFC8999] to
   maximize its robustness to future versions of QUIC.

   A fallback algorithm MUST NOT make the routing behavior dependent on
   any bits in the first octet of the QUIC packet header, except the
   first bit, which indicates a long header.  All other bits are QUIC
   version-dependent and intermediaries SHOULD NOT base their design on
   version-specific templates.



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   For example, one fallback algorithm might convert a unroutable DCID
   to an integer and divided by the number of servers, with the modulus
   used to forward the packet.  The number of servers is usually
   consistent on the time scale of a QUIC connection handshake.  Another
   might simply hash the address/port 4-tuple.  See also Section 10.

4.3.  Server ID Allocation

   For any given configuration, the configuration agent must specify if
   server IDs will be statically or dynamically allocated.  Load
   Balancer configurations with statically allocated server IDs
   explicitly include a mapping of server IDs to forwarding addresses.
   The corresponding server configurations contain one or more unique
   server IDs.

   A dynamically allocated configuration does not have a pre-defined
   assignment, reducing configuration complexity.  However, it places
   limits on the maximum server ID length and requires more state at the
   load balancer.  In certain edge cases, it can force parts of the
   system to fail over to 5-tuple routing for a short time.

   In either case, the configuration agent chooses a server ID length
   for each configuration that MUST be at least one octet.  For Static
   Allocation, the maximum length depends on the algorithm.  For dynamic
   allocation, the maximum length is 7 octets.

   A QUIC-LB configuration MAY significantly over-provision the server
   ID space (i.e., provide far more codepoints than there are servers)
   to increase the probability that a randomly generated Destination
   Connection ID is unroutable.

   Conceptually, each configuration has its own set of server ID
   allocations, though two static configurations with identical server
   ID lengths MAY use a common allocation between them.

   A server encodes one of its assigned server IDs in any CID it
   generates using the relevant configuration.

4.3.1.  Static Allocation

   In the static allocation method, the configuration agent assigns at
   least one server ID to each server.

   When forwarding a packet with a long header and unroutable DCID, load
   balancers MUST forward packets with long headers and unroutable DCIDs
   using an fallback algorithm as specified in Section 4.2.





Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


4.3.2.  Dynamic Allocation

   In the dynamic allocation method, the load balancer assigns server
   IDs dynamically so that configuration does not require fixed server
   ID assignment.  This reduces linkability and simplifies
   configuration.  However, it also limits the length of the server ID
   and requires the load balancer to lie on the path of outbound
   packets.  As the server mapping is no longer part of the
   configuration, standby load balancers need an out-of-band mechanism
   to synchronize server ID allocations in the event of failures of the
   primary device.

   To summarize, the load balancer forwards incoming Initial packets
   arbitrarily and both load balancer and server are sometimes able to
   infer a potential server ID allocation from the CID in the packet.
   The server can signal acceptance of that allocation by using it
   immediately, in which case both entities add it to their permanent
   table.  Usually, however, the server will reject the allocation by
   not using it, in which case it is not added to the permanent
   assignment list.

4.3.2.1.  Configuration Agent Actions

   The configuration agent does not assign server IDs, but does
   configure a server ID length.  The server ID MUST be at least one and
   no more than seven octets.  See Section 11.8 for other considerations
   if also using the Plaintext CID algorithm.

4.3.2.2.  Load Balancer Actions

   The load balancer maintains a mapping of assigned server IDs to
   routing information for servers, initialized as empty.  This mapping
   is independent for each operating configuration.

   Note that when the load balancer's tables for a configuration are
   empty, all incoming DCIDs corresponding to that configuration are
   unroutable by definition.

   The load balancer processes a long header packet as follows:

   *  If the config rotation bits do not match a known configuration,
      the load balancer routes the packet using a fallback algorithm
      (see Section 4.2).  It does not extract a server ID.

   *  If there is a matching configuration, but the CID is not long
      enough to apply the algorithm, the load balancer pads the
      connection ID with zeros to the required length.




Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   *  Otherwise, the load balancer extracts the server ID in accordance
      with the configured algorithm and parameters.

   If the load balancer extracted a server ID already in its mapping, it
   routes the packet accordingly.  If the server ID is not in the
   mapping, it routes the packet according to a fallback algorithm and
   awaits the first long header the server sends in response.

   If the load balancer extracted an unassigned server ID and observes
   that the first long header packet the server sends has a Source
   Connection ID that encodes the same server ID, it adds that server ID
   to the mapping.  Otherwise, it takes no action.

4.3.2.3.  Server actions

   Each server maintains a list of server IDs assigned to it,
   initialized empty.

   Upon receipt of a packet with a client-generated DCID, the server
   MUST follow these steps in order:

   *  If the config rotation bits do not correspond to a known
      configuration, do not attempt to extract a server ID.

   *  If the DCID is not long enough to decode using the configured
      algorithm, pad it with zeros to the required length and extract a
      server ID.

   *  If the DCID is long enough to decode, extract the server ID.

   If the server ID is not already in its list, the server MUST decide
   whether or not to immediately use it to encode a CID on the new
   connection.  If it chooses to use it, it adds the server ID to its
   list.  If it does not, it MUST NOT use the server ID in future CIDs.

   The server SHOULD NOT use more than one CID, unless it is close to
   exhausting the nonces for an existing assignment.  Note also that the
   load balancer may observe a single entity claiming multiple server
   IDs because that entity actually represents multiple servers devices
   or processors.

   The server MUST generate a new connection ID if the client-generated
   CID is of insufficient length for the configuration.

   The server then processes the packet normally.






Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   When a server needs a new connection ID, it uses one of the server
   IDs in its list to populate the server ID field of that CID.  It MAY
   vary this selection to reduce linkability within a connection.

   After loading a new configuration, a server may not have any
   available SIDs.  This is because an incoming packet may not contain
   the config rotation bits necessary to extract a server ID in
   accordance with the algorithm above.  When required to generate a CID
   under these conditions, the server MUST generate CIDs using the
   5-tuple routing codepoint (see Section 3.2.  Note that these
   connections will not be robust to client address changes while they
   use this connection ID.  For this reason, a server SHOULD retire
   these connection IDs and replace them with routable ones once it
   receives a client-generated CID that allows it to acquire a server
   ID.  As, statistically, one in every four such CIDs can provide a
   server ID, this is typically a short interval.

4.4.  CID format

   All connection IDs use the following format:

   QUIC-LB Connection ID {
       First Octet (8),
       Server ID (..),
       Nonce (..),
       For Server Use (..),
   }

                            Figure 3: CID Format

   Each configuration specifies the length of the Server ID and Nonce
   fields, with limits defined for each algorithm.

   The Server ID is assigned to each server in accordance with
   Section 4.3.  Dynamically allocated SIDs are limited to seven octets
   or fewer.  Statically allocated ones have different limits for each
   algorithm.

   The Nonce is selected by the server when it generates a CID.  As the
   name implies, a server MUST use a nonce no more than once when
   generating a CID for a given server ID and unique set of
   configuration parameters.  Limits on the length of the nonce are
   different for each algorithm.

   The First Octet, Server ID, and Nonce comprise the minimum length
   Connection ID for any given algorithm.  The load balancer need not
   know the full connection ID length to successfully process a packet,
   given that it is of minimum size.



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   The For Server Use field has any value and length chosen by the
   server, within the connection ID length limits in the operative QUIC
   version.  It SHOULD appear random and SHOULD NOT link two connection
   IDs to the same connection, or indicate they originate from the same
   server.

5.  Routing Algorithms

   Encryption in the algorithms below uses the AES-128-ECB cipher.
   Future standards could add new algorithms that use other ciphers to
   provide cryptographic agility in accordance with [RFC7696].  QUIC-LB
   implementations SHOULD be extensible to support new algorithms.

5.1.  Plaintext CID Algorithm

   The Plaintext CID Algorithm makes no attempt to obscure the mapping
   of connections to servers, significantly increasing linkability.

5.1.1.  Configuration Agent Actions

   For static SID allocation, the server ID length is limited to 16
   octets.  The nonce length MUST be zero.

5.1.2.  Load Balancer Actions

   On each incoming packet, the load balancer extracts consecutive
   octets, beginning with the second octet.  These bytes represent the
   server ID.

5.1.3.  Server Actions

   The server chooses how many octets to reserve for its own use, which
   MUST be at least one octet.

   When a server needs a new connection ID, it encodes one of its
   assigned server IDs in consecutive octets beginning with the second.

5.2.  Stream Cipher CID Algorithm

   The Stream Cipher CID algorithm provides cryptographic protection at
   the cost of additional per-packet processing at the load balancer to
   decrypt every incoming connection ID.  The CID format is depicted
   below.








Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


5.2.1.  Configuration Agent Actions

   The configuration agent assigns a server ID to every server in its
   pool, and determines a server ID length (in octets) sufficiently
   large to encode all server IDs, including potential future servers.

   The nonce length MUST be no fewer than 4 and no more than 16 octets.

   The server ID length and nonce length MUST sum to 19 or fewer octets,
   and SHOULD sum to 15 or fewer octets to allow space for server use.

5.2.2.  Load Balancer Actions

   Upon receipt of a QUIC packet, the load balancer extracts as many of
   the earliest octets from the destination connection ID as necessary
   to match the server ID.  The nonce immediately follows.

   The load balancer decrypts the nonce and the server ID using the
   following three pass algorithm:

   *  Pass 1: The load balancer decrypts the server ID using 128-bit AES
      Electronic Codebook (ECB) mode, much like QUIC header protection.
      The encrypted nonce octets are zero-padded to 16 octets.  AES-ECB
      encrypts this encrypted nonce using its key to generate a mask
      which it applies to the encrypted server id.  This provides an
      intermediate value of the server ID, referred to as server-id
      intermediate.

   server_id_intermediate = encrypted_server_id ^ AES-ECB(key, padded-
   encrypted-nonce)

   *  Pass 2: The load balancer decrypts the nonce octets using 128-bit
      AES ECB mode, using the server-id intermediate as "nonce" for this
      pass.  The server-id intermediate octets are zero-padded to 16
      octets.  AES-ECB encrypts this padded server-id intermediate using
      its key to generate a mask which it applies to the encrypted
      nonce.  This provides the decrypted nonce value.

   nonce = encrypted_nonce ^ AES-ECB(key, padded-server_id_intermediate)

   *  Pass 3: The load balancer decrypts the server ID using 128-bit AES
      ECB mode.  The nonce octets are zero-padded to 16 octets.  AES-ECB
      encrypts this nonce using its key to generate a mask which it
      applies to the intermediate server id.  This provides the
      decrypted server ID.

   server_id = server_id_intermediate ^ AES-ECB(key, padded-nonce)




Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   For example, if the nonce length is 10 octets and the server ID
   length is 2 octets, the connection ID can be as small as 13 octets.
   The load balancer uses the the second through eleventh octets of the
   connection ID for the nonce, zero-pads it to 16 octets, uses xors the
   result with the twelfth and thirteenth octet.  The result is padded
   with 14 octets of zeros and encrypted to obtain a mask that is xored
   with the nonce octets.  Finally, the nonce octets are padded with six
   octets of zeros, encrypted, and the first two octets xored with the
   server ID octets to obtain the actual server ID.

   This three-pass algorithm is a simplified version of the FFX
   algorithm, with the property that each encrypted nonce value depends
   on all server ID bits, and each encrypted server ID bit depends on
   all nonce bits and all server ID bits.  This mitigates attacks
   against stream ciphers in which attackers simply flip encrypted
   server-ID bits.

   The output of the decryption is the server ID that the load balancer
   uses for routing.

5.2.3.  Server Actions

   When generating a routable connection ID, the server writes arbitrary
   bits into its nonce octets, and its provided server ID into the
   server ID octets.  Servers MAY opt to have a longer connection ID
   beyond the nonce and server ID.  The additional bits MAY encode
   additional information, but SHOULD appear essentially random to
   observers.

   If the decrypted nonce bits increase monotonically, that guarantees
   that nonces are not reused between connection IDs from the same
   server.

   The server encrypts the server ID using exactly the algorithm as
   described in Section 5.2.2, performing the three passes in reverse
   order.

5.3.  Block Cipher CID Algorithm

   The Block Cipher CID Algorithm, by using a full 16 octets of
   plaintext and a 128-bit cipher, provides higher cryptographic
   protection and detection of unroutable connection IDs.  However, it
   also requires connection IDs of at least 17 octets, increasing
   overhead of client-to-server packets.







Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


5.3.1.  Configuration Agent Actions

   The server ID length MUST be no more than 12 octets.  The server ID
   length and nonce length MUST sum to exactly 16 octets.

   The configuration agent also selects an 16-octet AES-ECB key to use
   for connection ID decryption.

5.3.2.  Load Balancer Actions

   Upon receipt of a QUIC packet, the load balancer reads the first
   octet to obtain the config rotation bits.  It then decrypts the
   subsequent 16 octets using AES-ECB decryption and the chosen key.

   The decrypted plaintext contains the server id and opaque server data
   in that order.  The load balancer uses the server ID octets for
   routing.

5.3.3.  Server Actions

   The server encrypts both its server ID and a nonce in 16-octet block
   with the configured AES-ECB key.

6.  ICMP Processing

   For protocols where 4-tuple load balancing is sufficient, it is
   straightforward to deliver ICMP packets from the network to the
   correct server, by reading the echoed IP and transport-layer headers
   to obtain the 4-tuple.  When routing is based on connection ID,
   further measures are required, as most QUIC packets that trigger ICMP
   responses will only contain a client-generated connection ID that
   contains no routing information.

   To solve this problem, load balancers MAY maintain a mapping of
   Client IP and port to server ID based on recently observed packets.

   Alternatively, servers MAY implement the technique described in
   Section 14.4.1 of [RFC9000] to increase the likelihood a Source
   Connection ID is included in ICMP responses to Path Maximum
   Transmission Unit (PMTU) probes.  Load balancers MAY parse the echoed
   packet to extract the Source Connection ID, if it contains a QUIC
   long header, and extract the Server ID as if it were in a Destination
   CID.








Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


7.  Retry Service

   When a server is under load, QUICv1 allows it to defer storage of
   connection state until the client proves it can receive packets at
   its advertised IP address.  Through the use of a Retry packet, a
   token in subsequent client Initial packets, and transport parameters,
   servers verify address ownership and clients verify that there is no
   on-path attacker generating Retry packets.

   A "Retry Service" detects potential Denial of Service attacks and
   handles sending of Retry packets on behalf of the server.  As it is,
   by definition, literally an on-path entity, the service must
   communicate some of the original connection IDs back to the server so
   that it can pass client verification.  It also must either verify the
   address itself (with the server trusting this verification) or make
   sure there is common context for the server to verify the address
   using a service-generated token.

   There are two different mechanisms to allow offload of DoS mitigation
   to a trusted network service.  One requires no shared state; the
   server need only be configured to trust a retry service, though this
   imposes other operational constraints.  The other requires a shared
   key, but has no such constraints.

7.1.  Common Requirements

   Regardless of mechanism, a retry service has an active mode, where it
   is generating Retry packets, and an inactive mode, where it is not,
   based on its assessment of server load and the likelihood an attack
   is underway.  The choice of mode MAY be made on a per-packet or per-
   connection basis, through a stochastic process or based on client
   address.

   A configuration agent MUST distribute a list of QUIC versions the
   Retry Service supports.  It MAY also distribute either an "Allow-
   List" or a "Deny-List" of other QUIC versions.  It MUST NOT
   distribute both an Allow-List and a Deny-List.

   The Allow-List or Deny-List MUST NOT include any versions included
   for Retry Service Support.

   The Configuration Agent MUST provide a means for the entity that
   controls the Retry Service to report its supported version(s) to the
   configuration Agent.  If the entity has not reported this
   information, it MUST NOT activate the Retry Service and the
   configuration agent MUST NOT distribute configuration that activates
   it.




Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   The configuration agent MAY delete versions from the final supported
   version list if policy does not require the Retry Service to operate
   on those versions.

   The configuration Agent MUST provide a means for the entities that
   control servers behind the Retry Service to report either an Allow-
   List or a Deny-List.

   If all entities supply Allow-Lists, the consolidated list MUST be the
   union of these sets.  If all entities supply Deny-Lists, the
   consolidated list MUST be the intersection of these sets.

   If entities provide a mixture of Allow-Lists and Deny-Lists, the
   consolidated list MUST be a Deny-List that is the intersection of all
   provided Deny-Lists and the inverses of all Allow-Lists.

   If no entities that control servers have reported Allow-Lists or
   Deny-Lists, the default is a Deny-List with the null set (i.e., all
   unsupported versions will be admitted).  This preserves the future
   extensibilty of QUIC.

   A retry service MUST forward all packets for a QUIC version it does
   not support that are not on a Deny-List or absent from an Allow-List.
   Note that if servers support versions the retry service does not,
   this may increase load on the servers.

   Note that future versions of QUIC might not have Retry packets,
   require different information in Retry, or use different packet type
   indicators.

7.1.1.  Considerations for Non-Initial Packets

   Initial Packets are especially effective at consuming server
   resources because they cause the server to create connection state.
   Even when mitigating this load with Retry Packets, the act of
   validating an Initial Token and sending a Retry Packet is more
   expensive than the response to a non-Initial packet with an unknown
   Connection ID: simply dropping it and/or sending a Stateless Reset.

   Nevertheless, a Retry Service in Active Mode might desire to shield
   servers from non-Initial packets that do not correspond to a
   previously admitted Initial Packet.  This has a number of
   considerations.

   *  If a Retry Service maintains no per-flow state whatsoever, it
      cannot distinguish between valid and invalid non-Initial packets
      and MUST forward all non-Initial Packets to the server.




Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   *  For QUIC versions the Retry Service does not support and are
      present on the Allow-List (or absent from the Deny-List), the
      Retry Service cannot distinguish Initial Packets from other long
      headers and therefore MUST admit all long headers.

   *  If a Retry Service keeps per-flow state, it can identify 4-tuples
      that have been previously approved, admit non-Initial packets from
      those flows, and drop all others.  However, dropping short headers
      will effectively break Address Migration and NAT Rebinding when in
      Active Mode, as post-migration packets will arrive with a
      previously unknown 4-tuple.  This policy will also break
      connection attempts using any new QUIC versions that begin
      connections with a short header.

   *  If a Retry Service is integrated with a QUIC-LB routable load
      balancer, it can verify that the Destination Connection ID is
      routable, and only admit non-Initial packets with routable DCIDs.
      As the Connection ID encoding is invariant across QUIC versions,
      the Retry Service can do this for all short headers.

   Nothing in this section prevents Retry Services from making basic
   syntax correctness checks on packets with QUIC versions that it
   understands (e.g., enforcing the Initial Packet datagram size minimum
   in version 1) and dropping packets that are not routable with the
   QUIC specification.

7.2.  No-Shared-State Retry Service

   The no-shared-state retry service requires no coordination, except
   that the server must be configured to accept this service and know
   which QUIC versions the retry service supports.  The scheme uses the
   first bit of the token to distinguish between tokens from Retry
   packets (codepoint '0') and tokens from NEW_TOKEN frames (codepoint
   '1').

7.2.1.  Configuration Agent Actions

   See Section 7.1.

7.2.2.  Service Requirements

   A no-shared-state retry service MUST be present on all paths from
   potential clients to the server.  These paths MUST fail to pass QUIC
   traffic should the service fail for any reason.  That is, if the
   service is not operational, the server MUST NOT be exposed to client
   traffic.  Otherwise, servers that have already disabled their Retry
   capability would be vulnerable to attack.




Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   The path between service and server MUST be free of any potential
   attackers.  Note that this and other requirements above severely
   restrict the operational conditions in which a no-shared-state retry
   service can safely operate.

   Retry tokens generated by the service MUST have the format below.

   Non-Shared-State Retry Service Token {
     Token Type (1) = 0,
     ODCIL (7) = 8..20,
     Original Destination Connection ID (64..160),
     Opaque Data (..),
   }

         Figure 4: Format of non-shared-state retry service tokens

   The first bit of retry tokens generated by the service MUST be zero.
   The token has the following additional fields:

   ODCIL: The length of the original destination connection ID from the
   triggering Initial packet.  This is in cleartext to be readable for
   the server, but authenticated later in the token.  The Retry Service
   SHOULD reject any token in which the value is less than 8.

   Original Destination Connection ID: This also in cleartext and
   authenticated later.

   Opaque Data: This data contains the information necessary to
   authenticate the Retry token in accordance with the QUIC
   specification.  A straightforward implementation would encode the
   Retry Source Connection ID, client IP address, and a timestamp in the
   Opaque Data.  A more space-efficient implementation would use the
   Retry Source Connection ID and Client IP as associated data in an
   encryption operation, and encode only the timestamp and the
   authentication tag in the Opaque Data.  If the Initial Packet has
   altered the Connection ID or source IP address, authentication of the
   token will fail.

   Upon receipt of an Initial packet with a token that begins with '0',
   the retry service MUST validate the token in accordance with the QUIC
   specification.










Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   In active mode, the service MUST issue Retry packets for all Client
   initial packets that contain no token, or a token that has the first
   bit set to '1'.  It MUST NOT forward the packet to the server.  The
   service MUST validate all tokens with the first bit set to '0'.  If
   successful, the service MUST forward the packet with the token
   intact.  If unsuccessful, it MUST drop the packet.  The Retry Service
   MAY send an Initial Packet containing a CONNECTION_CLOSE frame with
   the INVALID_TOKEN error code when dropping the packet.

   Note that this scheme has a performance drawback.  When the retry
   service is in active mode, clients with a token from a NEW_TOKEN
   frame will suffer a 1-RTT penalty even though its token provides
   proof of address.

   In inactive mode, the service MUST forward all packets that have no
   token or a token with the first bit set to '1'.  It MUST validate all
   tokens with the first bit set to '0'.  If successful, the service
   MUST forward the packet with the token intact.  If unsuccessful, it
   MUST either drop the packet or forward it with the token removed.
   The latter requires decryption and re-encryption of the entire
   Initial packet to avoid authentication failure.  Forwarding the
   packet causes the server to respond without the
   original_destination_connection_id transport parameter, which
   preserves the normal QUIC signal to the client that there is an on-
   path attacker.

7.2.3.  Server Requirements

   A server behind a non-shared-state retry service MUST NOT send Retry
   packets for a QUIC version the retry service understands.  It MAY
   send Retry for QUIC versions the Retry Service does not understand.

   Tokens sent in NEW_TOKEN frames MUST have the first bit set to '1'.

   If a server receives an Initial Packet with the first bit set to '1',
   it could be from a server-generated NEW_TOKEN frame and should be
   processed in accordance with the QUIC specification.  If a server
   receives an Initial Packet with the first bit to '0', it is a Retry
   token and the server MUST NOT attempt to validate it.  Instead, it
   MUST assume the address is validated, MUST include the packet's
   Destination Connection ID in a Retry Source Connection ID transport
   parameter, and MUST extract the Original Destination Connection ID
   from the token cleartext for use in the transport parameter of the
   same name.







Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


7.3.  Shared-State Retry Service

   A shared-state retry service uses a shared key, so that the server
   can decode the service's retry tokens.  It does not require that all
   traffic pass through the Retry service, so servers MAY send Retry
   packets in response to Initial packets that don't include a valid
   token.

   Both server and service must have time synchronized with respect to
   one another to prevent tokens being incorrectly marked as expired,
   though tight synchronization is unnecessary.

   The tokens are protected using AES128-GCM AEAD, as explained in
   Section 7.3.1.  All tokens, generated by either the server or retry
   service, MUST use the following format, which includes:

   *  A 1 bit token type identifier.

   *  A 7 bit token key identifier.

   *  A 96 bit unique token number transmitted in clear text, but
      protected as part of the AEAD associated data.

   *  A token body, encoding the Original Destination Connection ID and
      the Timestamp, optionally followed by server specific Opaque Data.

   The token protection uses an 128 bit representation of the source IP
   address from the triggering Initial packet.  The client IP address is
   16 octets.  If an IPv4 address, the last 12 octets are zeroes.  It
   also uses the Source Connection ID of the Retry packet, which will
   cause an authentication failure if it differs from the Destination
   Connection ID of the packet bearing the token.

   If there is a Network Address Translator (NAT) in the server
   infrastructure that changes the client IP, the Retry Service MUST
   either be positioned behind the NAT, or the NAT must have the token
   key to rewrite the Retry token accordingly.  Note also that a host
   that obtains a token through a NAT and then attempts to connect over
   a path that does not have an identically configured NAT will fail
   address validation.

   The 96 bit unique token number is set to a random value using a
   cryptography-grade random number generator.

   The token key identifier and the corresponding AEAD key and AEAD IV
   are provisioned by the configuration agent.

   The token body is encoded as follows:



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   Shared-State Retry Service Token Body {
      Timestamp (64),
      [ODCIL (8) = 8..20],
      [Original Destination Connection ID (64..160)],
      [Port (16)],
      Opaque Data (..),
   }

            Figure 5: Body of shared-state retry service tokens

   The token body has the following fields:

   Timestamp: The Timestamp is a 64-bit integer, in network order, that
   expresses the expiration time of the token as a number of seconds in
   POSIX time (see Sec. 4.16 of [TIME_T]).

   ODCIL: The original destination connection ID length.  Tokens in
   NEW_TOKEN frames do not have this field.

   Original Destination Connection ID: The server or Retry Service
   copies this from the field in the client Initial packet.  Tokens in
   NEW_TOKEN frames do not have this field.

   Port: The Source Port of the UDP datagram that triggered the Retry
   packet.  This field MUST be present if and only if the ODCIL is
   greater than zero.  This field is therefore always absent in tokens
   in NEW_TOKEN frames.

   Opaque Data: The server may use this field to encode additional
   information, such as congestion window, RTT, or MTU.  The Retry
   Service MUST have zero-length opaque data.

   Some implementations of QUIC encode in the token the Initial Packet
   Number used by the client, in order to verify that the client sends
   the retried Initial with a PN larger that the triggering Initial.
   Such implementations will encode the Initial Packet Number as part of
   the opaque data.  As tokens may be generated by the Service, servers
   MUST NOT reject tokens because they lack opaque data and therefore
   the packet number.

   Shared-state Retry Services use the AES-128-ECB cipher.  Future
   standards could add new algorithms that use other ciphers to provide
   cryptographic agility in accordance with [RFC7696].  Retry Service
   and server implementations SHOULD be extensible to support new
   algorithms.






Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


7.3.1.  Token Protection with AEAD

   On the wire, the token is presented as:

   Shared-State Retry Service Token {
     Token Type (1),
     Key Sequence (7),
     Unique Token Number (96),
     Encrypted Shared-State Retry Service Token Body (64..),
     AEAD Integrity Check Value (128),
   }

         Figure 6: Wire image of shared-state retry service tokens

   The tokens are protected using AES128-GCM as follows:

   *  The Key Sequence is the 7 bit identifier to retrieve the token key
      and IV.

   *  The AEAD IV, is a 96 bit data which produced by implementer's
      custom AEAD IV derivation function.

   *  The AEAD nonce, N, is formed by combining the AEAD IV with the 96
      bit unique token number.  The 96 bits of the unique token number
      are left-padded with zeros to the size of the IV.  The exclusive
      OR of the padded unique token number and the AEAD IV forms the
      AEAD nonce.

   *  The associated data is a formatted as a pseudo header by combining
      the cleartext part of the token with the IP address of the client.
      The format of the pseudoheader depends on whether the Token Type
      bit is '1' (a NEW_TOKEN token) or '0' (a Retry token).

   Shared-State Retry Service Token Pseudoheader {
     IP Address (128),
     Token Type (1),
     Key Sequence (7),
     Unique Token Number (96),
     [RSCIL (8)],
     [Retry Source Connection ID (0..20)],
   }

        Figure 7: Psuedoheader for shared-state retry service tokens

   RSCIL: The Retry Source Connection ID Length in octets.  This field
   is only present when the Token Type is '0'.





Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   Retry Source Connection ID: To create a Retry Token, populate this
   field with the Source Connection ID the Retry packet will use.  To
   validate a Retry token, populate it with the Destination Connection
   ID of the Initial packet that carries the token.  This field is only
   present when the Token Type is '0'.

   *  The input plaintext for the AEAD is the token body.  The output
      ciphertext of the AEAD is transmitted in place of the token body.

   *  The AEAD Integrity Check Value(ICV), defined in Section 6 of
      [RFC4106], is computed as part of the AEAD encryption process, and
      is verified during decryption.

7.3.2.  Configuration Agent Actions

   The configuration agent generates and distributes a "token key", a
   "token IV", a key sequence, and the information described in
   Section 7.1.

7.3.3.  Service Requirements

   In inactive mode, the Retry service forwards all packets without
   further inspection or processing.  The rest of this section only
   applies to a service in active mode.

   Retry services MUST NOT issue Retry packets except where explicitly
   allowed below, to avoid sending a Retry packet in response to a Retry
   token.

   The service MUST generate Retry tokens with the format described
   above when it receives a client Initial packet with no token.

   If there is a token of either type, the service MUST attempt to
   decrypt it.

   To decrypt a packet, the service checks the Token Type and constructs
   a pseudoheader with the appropriate format for that type, using the
   bearing packet's Destination Connection ID to populate the Retry
   Source Connection ID field, if any.

   A token is invalid if:

   *  it uses unknown key sequence,

   *  the AEAD ICV does not match the expected value (By construction,
      it will only match if the client IP Address, and any Retry Source
      Connection ID, also matches),




Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   *  the ODCIL, if present, is invalid for a client-generated CID (less
      than 8 or more than 20 in QUIC version 1),

   *  the Timestamp of a token points to time in the past (however, in
      order to allow for clock skew, it SHOULD NOT consider tokens to be
      expired if the Timestamp encodes a few seconds in the past), or

   *  the port number, if present, does not match the source port in the
      encapsulating UDP header.

   Packets with valid tokens MUST be forwarded to the server.

   The service MUST drop packets with invalid tokens.  If the token is
   of type '1' (NEW_TOKEN), it MUST respond with a Retry packet.  If of
   type '0', it MUST NOT respond with a Retry packet.

7.3.4.  Server Requirements

   The server MAY issue Retry or NEW_TOKEN tokens in accordance with
   [RFC9000].  When doing so, it MUST follow the format above.

   The server MUST validate all tokens that arrive in Initial packets,
   as they may have bypassed the Retry service.  It determines validity
   using the procedure in Section 7.3.3.

   If a valid Retry token, the server populates the
   original_destination_connection_id transport parameter using the
   corresponding token field.  It populates the
   retry_source_connection_id transport parameter with the Destination
   Connection ID of the packet bearing the token.

   In all other respects, the server processes both valid and invalid
   tokens in accordance with [RFC9000].

   For QUIC versions the service does not support, the server MAY use
   any token format.

8.  Configuration Requirements

   QUIC-LB requires common configuration to synchronize understanding of
   encodings and guarantee explicit consent of the server.

   The load balancer and server MUST agree on a routing algorithm,
   server ID allocation method, and the relevant parameters for that
   algorithm.






Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   All algorithm configurations can have a server ID length, nonce
   length, and key.  However, for Plaintext CID, the key is not used and
   the nonce length is always zero.  For Block Cipher CID, the nonce
   length is directly computed from the server ID length.

   If server IDs are statically allocated, the load balancer MUST
   receive the full table of mappings, and each server must receive its
   assigned SID(s), from the configuration agent.

   Note that server IDs are opaque bytes, not integers, so there is no
   notion of network order or host order.

   A server configuration MUST specify if the first octet encodes the
   CID length.  Note that a load balancer does not need the CID length,
   as the required bytes are present in the QUIC packet.

   A full QUIC-LB server configuration MUST also specify the supported
   QUIC versions of any Retry Service.  If a shared-state service, the
   server also must have the token key.

   A non-shared-state Retry Service need only be configured with the
   QUIC versions it supports, and an Allow- or Deny-List.  A shared-
   state Retry Service also needs the token key, and to be aware if a
   NAT sits between it and the servers.

   Appendix A provides a YANG Model of the a full QUIC-LB configuration.

9.  Additional Use Cases

   This section discusses considerations for some deployment scenarios
   not implied by the specification above.

9.1.  Load balancer chains

   Some network architectures may have multiple tiers of low-state load
   balancers, where a first tier of devices makes a routing decision to
   the next tier, and so on, until packets reach the server.  Although
   QUIC-LB is not explicitly designed for this use case, it is possible
   to support it.

   If each load balancer is assigned a range of server IDs that is a
   subset of the range of IDs assigned to devices that are closer to the
   client, then the first devices to process an incoming packet can
   extract the server ID and then map it to the correct forwarding
   address.  Note that this solution is extensible to arbitrarily large
   numbers of load-balancing tiers, as the maximum server ID space is
   quite large.




Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


9.2.  Moving connections between servers

   Some deployments may transparently move a connection from one server
   to another.  The means of transferring connection state between
   servers is out of scope of this document.

   To support a handover, a server involved in the transition could
   issue CIDs that map to the new server via a NEW_CONNECTION_ID frame,
   and retire CIDs associated with the new server using the "Retire
   Prior To" field in that frame.

   Alternately, if the old server is going offline, the load balancer
   could simply map its server ID to the new server's address.

10.  Version Invariance of QUIC-LB

   Non-shared-state Retry Services are inherently dependent on the
   format (and existence) of Retry Packets in each version of QUIC, and
   so Retry Service configuration explicitly includes the supported QUIC
   versions.

   The server ID encodings, and requirements for their handling, are
   designed to be QUIC version independent (see [RFC8999]).  A QUIC-LB
   load balancer will generally not require changes as servers deploy
   new versions of QUIC.  However, there are several unlikely future
   design decisions that could impact the operation of QUIC-LB.

   The maximum Connection ID length could be below the minimum necessary
   for one or more encoding algorithms.

   Section 4.1 provides guidance about how load balancers should handle
   unroutable DCIDs.  This guidance, and the implementation of an
   algorithm to handle these DCIDs, rests on some assumptions:

   *  Incoming short headers do not contain DCIDs that are client-
      generated.

   *  The use of client-generated incoming DCIDs does not persist beyond
      a few round trips in the connection.

   *  While the client is using DCIDs it generated, some exposed fields
      (IP address, UDP port, client-generated destination Connection ID)
      remain constant for all packets sent on the same connection.








Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   *  Dynamic server ID allocation is dependent on client-generated
      Destination CIDs in Initial Packets being at least 8 octets in
      length.  If they are not, the load balancer may not be able to
      extract a valid server ID to add to its table.  Configuring a
      shorter server ID length can increase robustness to a change.

   While this document does not update the commitments in [RFC8999], the
   additional assumptions are minimal and narrowly scoped, and provide a
   likely set of constants that load balancers can use with minimal risk
   of version- dependence.

   If these assumptions are invalid, this specification is likely to
   lead to loss of packets that contain unroutable DCIDs, and in extreme
   cases connection failure.

   Some load balancers might inspect elements of the Server Name
   Indication (SNI) extension in the TLS Client Hello to make a routing
   decision.  Note that the format and cryptographic protection of this
   information may change in future versions or extensions of TLS or
   QUIC, and therefore this functionality is inherently not version-
   invariant.

11.  Security Considerations

   QUIC-LB is intended to prevent linkability.  Attacks would therefore
   attempt to subvert this purpose.

   Note that the Plaintext CID algorithm makes no attempt to obscure the
   server mapping, and therefore does not address these concerns.  It
   exists to allow consistent CID encoding for compatibility across a
   network infrastructure, which makes QUIC robust to NAT rebinding.
   Servers that are running the Plaintext CID algorithm SHOULD only use
   it to generate new CIDs for the Server Initial Packet and SHOULD NOT
   send CIDs in QUIC NEW_CONNECTION_ID frames, except that it sends one
   new Connection ID in the event of config rotation Section 3.1.  Doing
   so might falsely suggest to the client that said CIDs were generated
   in a secure fashion.

   A linkability attack would find some means of determining that two
   connection IDs route to the same server.  As described above, there
   is no scheme that strictly prevents linkability for all traffic
   patterns, and therefore efforts to frustrate any analysis of server
   ID encoding have diminishing returns.








Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


11.1.  Attackers not between the load balancer and server

   Any attacker might open a connection to the server infrastructure and
   aggressively simulate migration to obtain a large sample of IDs that
   map to the same server.  It could then apply analytical techniques to
   try to obtain the server encoding.

   The Stream and Block Cipher CID algorithms provide robust protection
   against any sort of linkage.  The Plaintext CID algorithm makes no
   attempt to protect this encoding.

   Were this analysis to obtain the server encoding, then on-path
   observers might apply this analysis to correlating different client
   IP addresses.

11.2.  Attackers between the load balancer and server

   Attackers in this privileged position are intrinsically able to map
   two connection IDs to the same server.  The QUIC-LB algorithms do
   prevent the linkage of two connection IDs to the same individual
   connection if servers make reasonable selections when generating new
   IDs for that connection.

11.3.  Multiple Configuration IDs

   During the period in which there are multiple deployed configuration
   IDs (see Section 3.1), there is a slight increase in linkability.
   The server space is effectively divided into segments with CIDs that
   have different config rotation bits.  Entities that manage servers
   SHOULD strive to minimize these periods by quickly deploying new
   configurations across the server pool.

11.4.  Limited configuration scope

   A simple deployment of QUIC-LB in a cloud provider might use the same
   global QUIC-LB configuration across all its load balancers that route
   to customer servers.  An attacker could then simply become a
   customer, obtain the configuration, and then extract server IDs of
   other customers' connections at will.

   To avoid this, the configuration agent SHOULD issue QUIC-LB
   configurations to mutually distrustful servers that have different
   keys for encryption algorithms.  In many cases, the load balancers
   can distinguish these configurations by external IP address.

   However, assigning multiple entities to an IP address is
   complimentary with concealing DNS requests (e.g., DoH [RFC8484]) and
   the TLS Server Name Indicator (SNI) ([I-D.ietf-tls-esni]) to obscure



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   the ultimate destination of traffic.  While the load balancer's
   fallback algorithm (Section 4.2) can use the SNI to make a routing
   decision on the first packet, there are three ways to route
   subsequent packets:

   *  all co-tenants can use the same QUIC-LB configuration, leaking the
      server mapping to each other as described above;

   *  co-tenants can be issued one of up to three configurations
      distinguished by the config rotation bits (Section 3.1), exposing
      information about the target domain to the entire network; or

   *  tenants can use 4-tuple routing in their CIDs (in which case they
      SHOULD disable migration in their connections), which neutralizes
      the value of QUIC-LB but preserves privacy.

   When configuring QUIC-LB, administrators must evaluate the privacy
   tradeoff considering the relative value of each of these properties,
   given the trust model between tenants, the presence of methods to
   obscure the domain name, and value of address migration in the tenant
   use cases.

   As the plaintext algorithm makes no attempt to conceal the server
   mapping, these deployments SHOULD simply use a common configuration.

11.5.  Stateless Reset Oracle

   Section 21.9 of [RFC9000] discusses the Stateless Reset Oracle
   attack.  For a server deployment to be vulnerable, an attacking
   client must be able to cause two packets with the same Destination
   CID to arrive at two different servers that share the same
   cryptographic context for Stateless Reset tokens.  As QUIC-LB
   requires deterministic routing of DCIDs over the life of a
   connection, it is a sufficient means of avoiding an Oracle without
   additional measures.

   Note also that when a server starts using a new QUIC-LB config
   rotation codepoint, new CIDs might not be unique with respect to
   previous configurations that occupied that codepoint, and therefore
   different clients may have observed the same CID and stateless reset
   token.  A straightforward method of managing stateless reset keys is
   to maintain a separate key for each config rotation codepoint, and
   replace each key when the configuration for that codepoint changes.
   Thus, a server transitions from one config to another, it will be
   able to generate correct tokens for connections using either type of
   CID.





Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


11.6.  Connection ID Entropy

   The Stream Cipher and Block Cipher algorithms need to generate
   different cipher text for each generated Connection ID instance to
   protect the Server ID.  To do so, at least four octets of the CID are
   reserved for a nonce that, if used only once, will result in unique
   cipher text for each Connection ID.

   If servers simply increment the nonce by one with each generated
   connection ID, then it is safe to use the existing keys until any
   server's nonce counter exhausts the allocated space and rolls over to
   zero.  Whether or not it implements this method, the server MUST NOT
   reuse a nonce until it switches to a configuration with new keys.

   Configuration agents SHOULD implement an out-of-band method to
   discover when servers are in danger of exhausting their nonce space,
   and SHOULD respond by issuing a new configuration.  A server that has
   exhausted its nonces MUST either switch to a different configuration,
   or if none exists, use the 4-tuple routing config rotation codepoint.

11.7.  Shared-State Retry Keys

   The Shared-State Retry Service defined in Section 7.3 describes the
   format of retry tokens or new tokens protected and encrypted using
   AES128-GCM.  Each token includes a 96 bit randomly generated unique
   token number, and an 8 bit identifier used to get the AES-GCM
   encryption context.  The AES-GCM encryption context contains a 128
   bit key and an AEAD IV.  There are three important security
   considerations for these tokens:

   *  An attacker that obtains a copy of the encryption key will be able
      to decrypt and forge tokens.

   *  Attackers may be able to retrieve the key if they capture a
      sufficently large number of retry tokens encrypted with a given
      key.

   *  Confidentiality of the token data will fail if separate tokens
      reuse the same 96 bit unique token number and the same key.

   To protect against disclosure of keys to attackers, service and
   servers MUST ensure that the keys are stored securely.  To limit the
   consequences of potential exposures, the time to live of any given
   key should be limited.

   Section 6.6 of [RFC9001] states that "Endpoints MUST count the number
   of encrypted packets for each set of keys.  If the total number of
   encrypted packets with the same key exceeds the confidentiality limit



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   for the selected AEAD, the endpoint MUST stop using those keys."  It
   goes on with the specific limit: "For AEAD_AES_128_GCM and
   AEAD_AES_256_GCM, the confidentiality limit is 2^23 encrypted
   packets; see Appendix B.1."  It is prudent to adopt the same limit
   here, and configure the service in such a way that no more than 2^23
   tokens are generated with the same key.

   In order to protect against collisions, the 96 bit unique token
   numbers should be generated using a cryptographically secure
   pseudorandom number generator (CSPRNG), as specified in Appendix C.1
   of the TLS 1.3 specification [RFC8446].  With proper random numbers,
   if fewer than 2^40 tokens are generated with a single key, the risk
   of collisions is lower than 0.001%.

11.8.  Resource Consumption of the SID table

   When using Dynamic SID allocation, the load balancer's SID table can
   be as large as 2^56 entries, which is prohibitively large.  To
   constrain the size of this table, servers are encouraged to accept as
   few SIDs as possible, so that the remainder do not enter the load
   balancer's table.

12.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA requirements.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC8999]  Thomson, M., "Version-Independent Properties of QUIC",
              RFC 8999, DOI 10.17487/RFC8999, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8999>.

   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.

   [TIME_T]   "Open Group Standard: Vol. 1: Base Definitions, Issue 7",
              IEEE Std 1003.1 , 2018,
              <http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/
              V1_chap04.html#tag_04_16>.




Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.draft-ietf-tls-dtls13]
              Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
              Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
              1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-
              dtls13-43, 30 April 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tls-
              dtls13-43.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id]
              Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., Fossati, T., and A. Kraus,
              "Connection Identifiers for DTLS 1.2", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-13, 22
              June 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
              tls-dtls-connection-id-13.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-esni]
              Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. A. Wood, "TLS
              Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-tls-esni-13, 12 August 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tls-esni-
              13.txt>.

   [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>.

   [RFC4106]  Viega, J. and D. McGrew, "The Use of Galois/Counter Mode
              (GCM) in IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4106, DOI 10.17487/RFC4106, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4106>.

   [RFC4347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
              January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.





Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   [RFC7696]  Housley, R., "Guidelines for Cryptographic Algorithm
              Agility and Selecting Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms",
              BCP 201, RFC 7696, DOI 10.17487/RFC7696, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7696>.

   [RFC7983]  Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Salgueiro, "Multiplexing Scheme
              Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
              Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)",
              RFC 7983, DOI 10.17487/RFC7983, September 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7983>.

   [RFC8340]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
              BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.

   [RFC8484]  Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
              (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.

   [RFC9001]  Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
              QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>.

Appendix A.  QUIC-LB YANG Model

   This YANG model conforms to [RFC6020] and expresses a complete QUIC-
   LB configuration.

module ietf-quic-lb {
  yang-version "1.1";
  namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-quic-lb";
  prefix "quic-lb";

  import ietf-yang-types {
    prefix yang;
    reference
      "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types.";
  }

  import ietf-inet-types {
    prefix inet;
    reference
      "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types.";
  }

  organization
    "IETF QUIC Working Group";




Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 37]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


  contact
    "WG Web:   <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic>
     WG List:  <quic@ietf.org>

     Authors: Martin Duke (martin.h.duke at gmail dot com)
              Nick Banks (nibanks at microsoft dot com)";

  description
    "This module enables the explicit cooperation of QUIC servers with
     trusted intermediaries without breaking important protocol features.

     Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
     authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

     Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
     without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to
     the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set
     forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
     Relating to IETF Documents
     (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

     This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
     (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself
     for full legal notices.

     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 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when,
     they appear in all capitals, as shown here.";

  revision "2021-01-29" {
    description
      "Initial Version";
    reference
      "RFC XXXX, QUIC-LB: Generating Routable QUIC Connection IDs";
  }

  container quic-lb {
    presence "The container for QUIC-LB configuration.";

    description
      "QUIC-LB container.";

    typedef quic-lb-key {
      type yang:hex-string {
        length 47;
      }



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 38]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


      description
        "This is a 16-byte key, represented with 47 bytes";
    }

    list cid-configs {
      key "config-rotation-bits";
      description
        "List up to three load balancer configurations";

      leaf config-rotation-bits {
        type uint8 {
          range "0..2";
        }
        mandatory true;
        description
          "Identifier for this CID configuration.";
      }

      leaf first-octet-encodes-cid-length {
        type boolean;
        default false;
        description
          "If true, the six least significant bits of the first CID
           octet encode the CID length minus one.";
      }

      leaf cid-key {
        type quic-lb-key;
        description
          "Key for encrypting the connection ID. If absent, the
           configuration uses the Plaintext algorithm.";
      }

      leaf nonce-length {
        type uint8 {
          range "4..16";
        }
        must '(../cid-key)' {
          error-message "nonce-length only valid if cid-key is set";
        }
        description
          "Length, in octets, of the nonce. If absent when cid-key is
           present, the configuration uses the Block Cipher Algorithm.
           If present along with cid-key, the configuration uses the
           Stream Cipher Algorithm.";
      }

      leaf dynamic-sid {



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 39]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


        type boolean;
        description
          "If true, server IDs are allocated dynamically.";
      }

      leaf server-id-length {
        type uint8 {
          range "1..18";
        }
        must '(dynamic-sid and . <= 7) or
                (not(../dynamic-sid)) and
                (not(../cid-key) and . <= 16) or
                ((../nonce-length) and . <= (19 - ../nonce-length)) or
                ((../cid-key) and not(../nonce-length) and . <= 12))' {
          error-message
            "Server ID length too long for routing algorithm and server ID
             allocation method";
        }
        mandatory true;
        description
          "Length (in octets) of a server ID. Further range-limited
           by sid-allocation, cid-key, and nonce-length.";
      }

      list server-id-mappings {
        when "not(../dynamic-sid)";
        key "server-id";
        description "Statically allocated Server IDs";

        leaf server-id {
          type yang:hex-string;
          must "string-length(.) = 3 * ../../server-id-length - 1";
          mandatory true;
          description
            "An allocated server ID";
        }

        leaf server-address {
          type inet:ip-address;
          mandatory true;
          description
            "Destination address corresponding to the server ID";
        }
      }
    }

    container retry-service-config {
      description



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 40]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


        "Configuration of Retry Service. If supported-versions is empty, there
         is no retry service. If token-keys is empty, it uses the non-shared-
         state service. If present, it uses shared-state tokens.";

      leaf-list supported-versions {
        type uint32;
        description
          "QUIC versions that the retry service supports. If empty, there
           is no retry service.";
      }

      leaf unsupported-version-default {
        type enumeration {
          enum allow {
            description "Unsupported versions admitted by default";
          }
          enum deny {
            description "Unsupported versions denied by default";
          }
        }
        default allow;
        description
          "Are unsupported versions not in version-exceptions allowed
           or denied?";
      }

      leaf-list version-exceptions {
        type uint32;
        description
          "Exceptions to the default-deny or default-allow rule.";
      }

      list token-keys {
        key "key-sequence-number";
        description
          "list of active keys, for key rotation purposes. Existence implies
           shared-state format";

        leaf key-sequence-number {
          type uint8 {
            range "0..127";
          }
          mandatory true;
          description
            "Identifies the key used to encrypt the token";
        }

        leaf token-key {



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 41]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


          type quic-lb-key;
          mandatory true;
          description
            "16-byte key to encrypt the token";
        }

        leaf token-iv {
          type yang:hex-string {
            length 23;
          }
          mandatory true;
          description
            "8-byte IV to encrypt the token, encoded in 23 bytes";
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

A.1.  Tree Diagram

   This summary of the YANG model uses the notation in [RFC8340].

 module: ietf-quic-lb
   +--rw quic-lb
      +--rw cid-configs*
      |       [config-rotation-bits]
      |  +--rw config-rotation-bits             uint8
      |  +--rw first-octet-encodes-cid-length?  boolean
      |  +--rw cid-key?                         yang:hex-string
      |  +--rw nonce-length?                    uint8
      |  +--rw dynamic-sid                      boolean
      |  +--rw server-id-length                 uint8
      |  +--rw server-id-mappings*?
      |  |       [server-id]
      |  |  +--rw server-id                     yang:hex-string
      |  |  +--rw server-address                inet:ip-address
      +--ro retry-service-config
      |  +--rw supported-versions*
      |  |  +--rw version                       uint32
      |  +--rw unsupported-version-default      enumeration {allow deny}
      |  +--rw version-exceptions*
      |  |  +--rw version                       uint32
      |  +--rw token-keys*?
      |  |       [key-sequence-number]
      |  |  +--rw key-sequence-number           uint8
      |  |  +--rw token-key                     yang:hex-string
      |  |  +--rw token-iv                      yang:hex-string



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 42]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


Appendix B.  Load Balancer Test Vectors

   Each section of this draft includes multiple sets of load balancer
   configuration, each of which has five examples of server ID and
   server use bytes and how they are encoded in a CID.

   In some cases, there are no server use bytes.  Note that, for
   simplicity, the first octet bits used for neither config rotation nor
   length self-encoding are random, rather than listed in the server use
   field.  Therefore, a server implementation using these parameters may
   generate CIDs with a slightly different first octet.

   This section uses the following abbreviations:

   cid      Connection ID
   cr_bits  Config Rotation Bits
   LB       Load Balancer
   sid      Server ID
   sid_len  Server ID length
   su       Server Use Bytes

   All values except length_self_encoding and sid_len are expressed in
   hexidecimal format.

B.1.  Plaintext Connection ID Algorithm


























Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 43]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   LB configuration: cr_bits 0x0 length_self_encoding: y sid_len 1

   cid 01be sid be su
   cid 0221b7 sid 21 su b7
   cid 03cadfd8 sid ca su dfd8
   cid 041e0c9328 sid 1e su 0c9328
   cid 050c8f6d9129 sid 0c su 8f6d9129

   LB configuration: cr_bits 0x0 length_self_encoding: n sid_len 2

   cid 02aab0 sid aab0 su
   cid 3ac4b106 sid c4b1 su 06
   cid 08bd3cf4a0 sid bd3c su f4a0
   cid 3771d59502d6 sid 71d5 su 9502d6
   cid 1d57dee8b888f3 sid 57de su e8b888f3

   LB configuration: cr_bits 0x0 length_self_encoding: y sid_len 3

   cid 0336c976 sid 36c976 su
   cid 04aa291806 sid aa2918 su 06
   cid 0586897bd8b6 sid 86897b su d8b6
   cid 063625bcae4de0 sid 3625bc su ae4de0
   cid 07966fb1f3cb535f sid 966fb1 su f3cb535f

   LB configuration: cr_bits 0x0 length_self_encoding: n sid_len 4

   cid 185172fab8 sid 5172fab8 su
   cid 2eb7ff2c9297 sid b7ff2c92 su 97
   cid 14f3eb3dd3edbe sid f3eb3dd3 su edbe
   cid 3feb31cece744b74 sid eb31cece su 744b74
   cid 06b9f34c353ce23bb5 sid b9f34c35 su 3ce23bb5

   LB configuration: cr_bits 0x0 length_self_encoding: y sid_len 5

   cid 05bdcd8d0b1d sid bdcd8d0b1d su
   cid 06aee673725a63 sid aee673725a su 63
   cid 07bbf338ddbf37f4 sid bbf338ddbf su 37f4
   cid 08fbbca64c26756840 sid fbbca64c26 su 756840
   cid 09e7737c495b93894e34 sid e7737c495b su 93894e34

B.2.  Stream Cipher Connection ID Algorithm

   In each case below, the server is using a plain text nonce value of
   zero.







Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 44]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


LB configuration: cr_bits 0x0 length_self_encoding: y nonce_len 12 sid_len 1
    key 4d9d0fd25a25e7f321ef464e13f9fa3d

cid 0d69fe8ab8293680395ae256e89c sid c5 su
cid 0e420d74ed99b985e10f5073f43027 sid d5 su 27
cid 0f380f440c6eefd3142ee776f6c16027 sid 10 su 6027
cid 1020607efbe82049ddbf3a7c3d9d32604d sid 3c su 32604d
cid 11e132d12606a1bb0fa17e1caef00ec54c10 sid e3 su 0ec54c10

LB configuration: cr_bits 0x0 length_self_encoding: n nonce_len 12 sid_len 2
    key 49e1cec7fd264b1f4af37413baf8ada9

cid 3d3a5e1126414271cc8dc2ec7c8c15 sid f7fe su
cid 007042539e7c5f139ac2adfbf54ba748 sid eaf4 su 48
cid 2bc125dd2aed2aafacf59855d99e029217 sid e880 su 9217
cid 3be6728dc082802d9862c6c8e4dda3d984d8 sid 62c6 su d984d8
cid 1afe9c6259ad350fc7bad28e0aeb2e8d4d4742 sid 8502 su 8d4d4742

LB configuration: cr_bits 0x0 length_self_encoding: y nonce_len 14 sid_len 3
    key 2c70df0b399bd33a7335523dcdb884ad

cid 11d62e8670565cd30b552edff6782ff5a740 sid d794bb su
cid 12c70e481f49363cabd9370d1fd5012c12bca5 sid 2cbd5d su a5
cid 133b95dfd8ad93566782f8424df82458069fc9e9 sid d126cd su c9e9
cid 13ac6ffcd635532ab60370306c7ee572d6b6e795 sid 539e42 su e795
cid 1383ed07a9700777ff450bb39bb9c1981266805c sid 9094dd su 805c

LB configuration: cr_bits 0x0 length_self_encoding: n nonce_len 12 sid_len 4
    key 2297b8a95c776cf9c048b76d9dc27019

cid 32873890c3059ca62628089439c44c1f84 sid 7398d8ca su
cid 1ff7c7d7b9823954b178636c99a7dc93ac83 sid 9655f091 su 83
cid 31044000a5ebb3bf2fa7629a17f2c78b077c17 sid 8b035fc6 su 7c17
cid 1791bd28c66721e8fea0c6f34fd2d8e663a6ef70 sid 6672e0e2 su a6ef70
cid 3df1d90ad5ccd5f8f475f040e90aeca09ec9839d sid b98b1fff su c9839d

LB configuration: cr_bits 0x0 length_self_encoding: y nonce_len 8 sid_len 5
    key 484b2ed942d9f4765e45035da3340423

cid 0da995b7537db605bfd3a38881ae sid 391a7840dc su
cid 0ed8d02d55b91d06443540d1bf6e98 sid 10f7f7b284 su 98
cid 0f3f74be6d46a84ccb1fd1ee92cdeaf2 sid 0606918fc0 su eaf2
cid 1045626dbf20e03050837633cc5650f97c sid e505eea637 su 50f97c
cid 11bb9a17f691ab446a938427febbeb593eaa sid 99343a2a96 su eb593eaa







Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 45]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


B.3.  Block Cipher Connection ID Algorithm

   In each case below, the server is using a plain text nonce value of
   zero.

   TBD

B.4.  Shared State Retry Tokens

   In this case, the shared-state retry token is issued by retry
   service, so the opaque data of shared-state retry token body would be
   null (Section 7.3).

LB configuration:
key_seq 0x00
encrypt_key 0x30313233343536373839303132333435
AEAD_IV 0x313233343536373839303132

Shared-State Retry Service Token Body:
ODCIL 0x12
RSCIL 0x10
port 0x1a0a
original_destination_connection_id 0x0c3817b544ca1c94313bba41757547eec937
retry_source_connection_id 0x0301e770d24b3b13070dd5c2a9264307
timestamp 0x0000000060c7bf4d

Shared-State Retry Service Token:
unique_token_number 0x59ef316b70575e793e1a8782
key_sequence 0x00
encrypted_shared_state_retry_service_token_body
0x7d38b274aa4427c7a1557c3fa666945931defc65da387a83855196a7cb73caac1e28e5346fd76868de94f8b62294
AEAD_ICV 0xf91174fdd711543a32d5e959867f9c22

AEAD related parameters:
client_ip_addr 127.0.0.1
client_port 6666
AEAD_nonce 0x68dd025f45616941072ab6b0
AEAD_associated_data 0x7f00000100000000000000000000000059ef316b70575e793e1a878200

Appendix C.  Interoperability with DTLS over UDP

   Some environments may contain DTLS traffic as well as QUIC operating
   over UDP, which may be hard to distinguish.

   In most cases, the packet parsing rules above will cause a QUIC-LB
   load balancer to route DTLS traffic in an appropriate way.  DTLS 1.3
   implementations that use the connection_id extension
   [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id] might use the techniques in this



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 46]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   document to generate connection IDs and achieve robust routability
   for DTLS associations if they meet a few additional requirements.
   This non-normative appendix describes this interaction.

C.1.  DTLS 1.0 and 1.2

   DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and 1.2 [RFC6347] use packet formats that a QUIC-
   LB router will interpret as short header packets with CIDs that
   request 4-tuple routing.  As such, they will route such packets
   consistently as long as the 4-tuple does not change.  Note that DTLS
   1.0 has been deprecated by the IETF.

   The first octet of every DTLS 1.0 or 1.2 datagram contains the
   content type.  A QUIC-LB load balancer will interpret any content
   type less than 128 as a short header packet, meaning that the
   subsequent octets should contain a connection ID.

   Existing TLS content types comfortably fit in the range below 128.
   Assignment of codepoints greater than 64 would require coordination
   in accordance with [RFC7983], and anyway would likely create problems
   demultiplexing DTLS and version 1 of QUIC.  Therefore, this document
   believes it is extremely unlikely that TLS content types of 128 or
   greater will be assigned.  Nevertheless, such an assignment would
   cause a QUIC-LB load balancer to interpret the packet as a QUIC long
   header with an essentially random connection ID, which is likely to
   be routed irregularly.

   The second octet of every DTLS 1.0 or 1.2 datagram is the bitwise
   complement of the DTLS Major version (i.e. version 1.x = 0xfe).  A
   QUIC-LB load balancer will interpret this as a connection ID that
   requires 4-tuple based load balancing, meaning that the routing will
   be consistent as long as the 4-tuple remains the same.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id] defines an extension to add
   connection IDs to DTLS 1.2.  Unfortunately, a QUIC-LB load balancer
   will not correctly parse the connection ID and will continue 4-tuple
   routing.  An modified QUIC-LB load balancer that correctly identifies
   DTLS and parses a DTLS 1.2 datagram for the connection ID is outside
   the scope of this document.

C.2.  DTLS 1.3

   DTLS 1.3 [I-D.draft-ietf-tls-dtls13] changes the structure of
   datagram headers in relevant ways.







Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 47]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   Handshake packets continue to have a TLS content type in the first
   octet and 0xfe in the second octet, so they will be 4-tuple routed,
   which should not present problems for likely NAT rebinding or address
   change events.

   Non-handshake packets always have zero in their most significant bit
   and will therefore always be treated as QUIC short headers.  If the
   connection ID is present, it follows in the succeeding octets.
   Therefore, a DTLS 1.3 association where the server utilizes
   Connection IDs and the encodings in this document will be routed
   correctly in the presence of client address and port changes.

   However, if the client does not include the connection_id extension
   in its ClientHello, the server is unable to use connection IDs.  In
   this case, non- handshake packets will appear to contain random
   connection IDs and be routed randomly.  Thus, unmodified QUIC-LB load
   balancers will not work with DTLS 1.3 if the client does not
   advertise support for connection IDs, or the server does not request
   the use of a compliant connection ID.

   A QUIC-LB load balancer might be modified to identify DTLS 1.3
   packets and correctly parse the fields to identify when there is no
   connection ID and revert to 4-tuple routing, removing the server
   requirement above.  However, such a modification is outside the scope
   of this document, and classifying some packets as DTLS might be
   incompatible with future versions of QUIC.

C.3.  Future Versions of DTLS

   As DTLS does not have an IETF consensus document that defines what
   parts of DTLS will be invariant in future versions, it is difficult
   to speculate about the applicability of this section to future
   versions of DTLS.

Appendix D.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Christian Huitema and Ian Swett for
   their major design contributions.

   Manasi Deval, Erik Fuller, Toma Gavrichenkov, Jana Iyengar, Subodh
   Iyengar, Ladislav Lhotka, Jan Lindblad, Ling Tao Nju, Kazuho Oku,
   Udip Pant, Martin Thomson, Dmitri Tikhonov, Victor Vasiliev, and
   William Zeng Ke all provided useful input to this document.

Appendix E.  Change Log

      *RFC Editor's Note:* Please remove this section prior to
      publication of a final version of this document.



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 48]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


E.1.  since draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-07

   *  Shortened SSCID nonce minimum length to 4 bytes

   *  Removed RSCID from Retry token body

   *  Simplified CID formats

   *  Shrunk size of SID table

E.2.  since draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-06

   *  Added interoperability with DTLS

   *  Changed "non-compliant" to "unroutable"

   *  Changed "arbitrary" algorithm to "fallback"

   *  Revised security considerations for mistrustful tenants

   *  Added retry service considerations for non-Initial packets

E.3.  since draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-05

   *  Added low-config CID for further discussion

   *  Complete revision of shared-state Retry Token

   *  Added YANG model

   *  Updated configuration limits to ensure CID entropy

   *  Switched to notation from quic-transport

E.4.  since draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-04

   *  Rearranged the shared-state retry token to simplify token
      processing

   *  More compact timestamp in shared-state retry token

   *  Revised server requirements for shared-state retries

   *  Eliminated zero padding from the test vectors

   *  Added server use bytes to the test vectors

   *  Additional compliant DCID criteria



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 49]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


E.5.  since-draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-03

   *  Improved Config Rotation text

   *  Added stream cipher test vectors

   *  Deleted the Obfuscated CID algorithm

E.6.  since-draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-02

   *  Replaced stream cipher algorithm with three-pass version

   *  Updated Retry format to encode info for required TPs

   *  Added discussion of version invariance

   *  Cleaned up text about config rotation

   *  Added Reset Oracle and limited configuration considerations

   *  Allow dropped long-header packets for known QUIC versions

E.7.  since-draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-01

   *  Test vectors for load balancer decoding

   *  Deleted remnants of in-band protocol

   *  Light edit of Retry Services section

   *  Discussed load balancer chains

E.8.  since-draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-00

   *  Removed in-band protocol from the document

E.9.  Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-06

   *  Switch to IETF WG draft.

E.10.  Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-05

   *  Editorial changes

   *  Made load balancer behavior independent of QUIC version

   *  Got rid of token in stream cipher encoding, because server might
      not have it



Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 50]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   *  Defined "non-compliant DCID" and specified rules for handling
      them.

   *  Added psuedocode for config schema

E.11.  Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-04

   *  Added standard for retry services

E.12.  Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-03

   *  Renamed Plaintext CID algorithm as Obfuscated CID

   *  Added new Plaintext CID algorithm

   *  Updated to allow 20B CIDs

   *  Added self-encoding of CID length

E.13.  Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-02

   *  Added Config Rotation

   *  Added failover mode

   *  Tweaks to existing CID algorithms

   *  Added Block Cipher CID algorithm

   *  Reformatted QUIC-LB packets

E.14.  Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-01

   *  Complete rewrite

   *  Supports multiple security levels

   *  Lightweight messages

E.15.  Since draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-00

   *  Converted to markdown

   *  Added variable length connection IDs

Authors' Addresses





Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 51]


Internet-Draft                   QUIC-LB                    October 2021


   Martin Duke
   F5 Networks, Inc.

   Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com


   Nick Banks
   Microsoft

   Email: nibanks@microsoft.com









































Duke & Banks              Expires 7 April 2022                 [Page 52]