Internet DRAFT - draft-piraux-intarea-quic-tunnel
draft-piraux-intarea-quic-tunnel
Internet Area Working Group M. Piraux
Internet-Draft O. Bonaventure
Intended status: Experimental UCLouvain
Expires: 6 May 2021 A. Masputra
Apple Inc.
2 November 2020
Tunneling Internet protocols inside QUIC
draft-piraux-intarea-quic-tunnel-00
Abstract
This document specifies methods for tunneling packets of Internet
protocols inside a QUIC connection.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 May 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Piraux, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Reference environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. The tunnel mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Connection establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Reporting access networks availability . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Messages format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. QUIC tunnel control TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1.1. Access Report TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Ingress Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Registration of QUIC tunnel Identification String . . . . 7
9.2. QUIC tunnel control TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2.1. QUIC tunnel control TLVs Types . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.3. QUIC tunnel Access Report Signal Codes . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.1. Since draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.2. Since draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.3. Since draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.4. Since draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Mobile devices such as laptops, smartphones or tablets have different
requirements than the traditional fixed devices. These mobile
devices often change their network attachment. They are often
attached to trusted networks, but sometimes they need to be connected
to untrusted networks where their communications can be eavesdropped,
filtered or modified. In these situations, the classical approach is
to rely on VPN protocols such as DTLS or IPSec. These VPN protocols
provide the encryption and authentication functions to protect those
mobile clients from malicious behaviors in untrusted networks.
However, some networks have deployed filters that block these VPN
protocols. When faced with such filters, users can either switch off
their connection or find alternatives, e.g. by using TLS to access
some services over TCP port 443. The planned deployment of QUIC
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport] [I-D.ietf-quic-tls] opens a new opportunity
for such users. Since QUIC will be used to access web sites, it
Piraux, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2020
should be less affected by filters than VPN solutions such as IPSec
or DTLS. Furthermore, the flexibility of QUIC makes it possible to
easily extend the protocol to support VPN services.
This document explores how QUIC could be used to enable devices to
communicate securely in untrusted networks. The QUIC protocol opens
up a new way to find a clean solution to this problem. First, QUIC
includes the same encryption and authentication techniques as
deployed VPN protocols. Second, QUIC is intended to be widely used
to support web-based services, making it unlikely to be filtered in
many networks, in contrast with VPN protocols. Third, the QUIC
migration mechanism enables handovers between several network
interfaces.
This document is organized as follows. Section 3 describes the
reference environment. Then, we propose a first mode of operation,
explained in Section 4, that use the recently proposed datagram
extension ([I-D.pauly-quic-datagram]) for QUIC to transport plain
packets over a QUIC connection. Section 5 specifies how a connection
is established in this document proposal. Section 7 details the
format of the messages introduced by this document.
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Reference environment
The reference scenario is a client that uses a QUIC tunnel to send
all its packets to a concentrator. The concentrator processes the
packets received from the client over the QUIC connection and
forwards them to their final destination. It also receives the
packets destined to the client and tunnels them through the QUIC
connection.
+-------------+
+--------+ +--------------+ | Final |
| Client | | Concentrator |<===\ ... \===>| destination |
+--------+ +--------------+ | server |
^ +---------+ ^ +-------------+
| | Access | | Legend:
.----| network |----. --- QUIC connection
+---------+ === Tunneled flow
Piraux, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2020
Figure 1: A client attached to a concentrator
In a nutshell, the solution proposed in this document works as
follows. The client opens a QUIC connection to a concentrator. The
concentrator authenticates the client through means that are outside
the scope of this document such as client certificates, usernames/
passwords, OAuth, ... If the authentication succeeds, the client can
send packets via the concentrator by tunneling them through the
concentrator.
The concentrator captures the packets destined to the client and
tunnels them over the QUIC connection. This solution is intended to
provide a similar service as the one provided by IPSec tunnels or
DTLS. This document leaves address assignment mechanisms out of
scope, deployments can rely on out-of-band configurations for that
purpose.
4. The tunnel mode
The "tunnel mode" of operation leverages the recently proposed QUIC
datagram extension [I-D.pauly-quic-datagram]. In a nutshell, to send
a packet to a remote host, the client simply encapsulates the entire
packet inside a QUIC DATAGRAM frame sent over the QUIC connection
established with the concentrator.
The frame transmission is subject to congestion control, but the
frame that contains the packet is not retransmitted in case of loss
as specified in [I-D.pauly-quic-datagram].
This mode adds a minimal byte overhead for packet encapsulation in
QUIC. It does not define ways of indicating the protocol of the
conveyed packets, which can be useful in deployments for which out-
of-band signaling may be used.
5. Connection establishment
During QUIC connection establishment, the "tunnel mode" of operation
support is indicated by setting the ALPN token "qt" in the TLS
handshake. Draft-version implementations MAY specify a particular
draft version by suffixing the token, e.g. "qt-00" refers to the
first version of this document.
After the QUIC connection is established, the client can start using
the "tunnel mode". The client may use PCP [RFC6887] to request the
concentrator to accept inbound connections on their behalf. After
the negotiation of such port mappings, the concentrator can start
sending packets containing inbound connections in QUIC DATAGRAM
frame.
Piraux, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2020
6. Reporting access networks availability
When the access network is unstable or its performance is degrading,
for instance due to signal loss, being able to report its
availability to the concentrator can help reduce the amount of
packets sent over unstable or unavailable paths. It can also resume
quickly the sending of packets over a previously unavailable access
network.
To do so, we define in Section 7 a message called Access Report TLV.
The message can be sent by the client to the concentrator. It
identifies the type of access network reported and its associated
status. This message is sent over the QUIC connection in a separate
unidirectional stream.
7. Messages format
In the following sections, we specify the format of each message
introduced in this document. The messages are encoded as TLVs, i.e.
(Type, Length, Value) tuples, as illustrated in Figure 2. All TLV
fields are encoded in network-byte order.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (8) | Length (8) | [Value (*)] ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: QUIC tunnel TLV Format
The Type field is encoded as a byte and identifies the type of the
TLV. The Length field is encoded as a byte and indicate the length
in bytes of the Value field. A value of zero indicates that no Value
field is present. The Value field is a type-specific value whose
length is determined by the Length field.
7.1. QUIC tunnel control TLVs
This document specifies the following QUIC tunnel control TLVs:
+------+----------+--------+------+-------------------+
| Type | Size | Sender | Mode | Name |
+------+----------+--------+------+-------------------+
| 0x00 | 4 bytes | Client | all | Access Report TLV |
+------+----------+--------+------+-------------------+
Figure 3: QUIC tunnel control TLVs
Piraux, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2020
The Access Report TLV is sent by the client to periodically report on
access networks availability. Each Access Report TLV MUST be sent on
a separate unidirectional stream. The stream FIN bit MUST be set
following the end of the TLV.
7.1.1. Access Report TLV
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x00 | Length = 0x02 | AI (4)| R (4) | Signal (8) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Access Report TLV
The Access Report TLV contains the following:
* AI (Access ID) - a four-bit-long field that identifies the access
network, e.g., 3GPP (Radio Access Technologies specified by 3GPP)
or Non-3GPP (accesses that are not specified by 3GPP) [TS23501].
The value is one of those listed below (all other values are
invalid and the TLV that contains it MUST be discarded):
+-----------+-----------------------+
| Access ID | Description |
+-----------+-----------------------+
| 1 | 3GPP Network |
| 2 | Non-3GPP Network |
+-----------+-----------------------+
* R (Reserved) - a four-bit-long field that MUST be zeroed on
transmission and ignored on receipt.
* Signal - a one-octet-long field that identifies the report signal,
e.g., available or unavailable. The value is supplied to the QUIC
tunnel through some mechanism that is outside the scope of this
document. The value is one of those listed in Section 9.3.
The client that includes the Access Report TLV sets the value of the
Access ID field according to the type of access network it reports
on. Also, the client sets the value of the Signal field to reflect
the operational state of the access network. The mechanism to
determine the state of the access network is outside the scope of
this specification.
The client MUST be able to cancel the sending of an Access Report TLV
that is pending delivery, i.e. by resetting its corresponding
unidirectional stream. This can be used when the information
Piraux, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2020
contained in the TLV is no longer relevant, e.g. the access network
availability has changed. The time of canceling is based on local
policies and network environment.
Reporting the unavailability of an access network to the concentrator
can serve as an indication to stop sending packets over this network
while maintaining the QUIC tunnel connection. Upon reporting of the
availability of this network, the concentrator can quickly resume
sending packets over this network.
8. Security Considerations
8.1. Privacy
The Concentrator has access to all the packets it processes. It MUST
be protected as a core IP router, e.g. as specified in [RFC1812].
8.2. Ingress Filtering
Ingress filtering policies MUST be enforced at the network
boundaries, i.e. as specified in [RFC2827].
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. Registration of QUIC tunnel Identification String
This document creates one new registration for the identification of
the QUIC tunnel protocol in the "Application Layer Protocol
Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs" registry established in [RFC7301].
The "qt" string identifies the QUIC tunnel protocol datagram mode.
Protocol: QUIC Tunnel
Identification Sequence: 0x71 0x74 ("qt")
Specification: This document
9.2. QUIC tunnel control TLVs
IANA is requested to create a new "QUIC tunnel control Parameters"
registry.
The following subsections detail new registries within "QUIC tunnel
control Parameters" registry.
Piraux, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2020
9.2.1. QUIC tunnel control TLVs Types
IANA is request to create the "QUIC tunnel control TLVs Types" sub-
registry. New values are assigned via IETF Review (Section 4.8 of
[RFC8126]).
The initial values to be assigned at the creation of the registry are
as follows:
+------+-----------------------+------------+
| Code | Name | Reference |
+------+-----------------------+------------+
| 0 | Access Report TLV | [This-Doc] |
+------+-----------------------+------------+
9.3. QUIC tunnel Access Report Signal Codes
This document establishes a registry for QUIC tunnel Access Report
Signal codes. The "QUIC tunnel Access Report Signal Code" registry
manages a 62-bit space. New values are assigned via IETF Review
(Section 4.8 of [RFC8126]).
The initial values to be assigned at the creation of the registry are
as follows:
+------+-----------------------+------------+
| Code | Name | Reference |
+------+-----------------------+------------+
| 1 | Access Available | [This-Doc] |
| 2 | Access Unavailable | [This-Doc] |
+------+-----------------------+------------+
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[TS23501] 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project), "Technical
Specification Group Services and System Aspects; System
Architecture for the 5G System; Stage 2 (Release 16)",
3GPP TS23501, 2019.
Piraux, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2020
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.pauly-quic-datagram]
Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable
Datagram Extension to QUIC", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-pauly-quic-datagram-05, 4 November 2019,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pauly-quic-
datagram-05.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-quic-transport-32, 20 October 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-
transport-32.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-quic-tls]
Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using TLS to Secure QUIC",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-tls-32,
20 October 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-quic-tls-32.txt>.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.
Piraux, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2020
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Appendix A. Change Log
A.1. Since draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-03
* Make the lightweight mode the default "tunnel mode"
* Rename the datagram mode as tunnel session mode in draft-piraux-
intarea-quic-tunnel-session
A.2. Since draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-02
* Add the lightweight mode
A.3. Since draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-01
* Add the Access Report TLV for reporting access networks
availability
* Add a section with examples of use of the Packet Tag
A.4. Since draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-00
* Separate the document in two and put the stream mode in another
document
* Remove TCP Extended TLV
* Add a mechanism for joining QUIC connections in a QUIC tunneling
session
* Add a format for encoding any network-layer protocol packets and
Ethernet frames in QUIC DATAGRAM frames
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Quentin De Coninck and Francois Michel for their comments
and the proofreading of the first version of draft-piraux-quic-
tunnel. Thanks to Gregory Vander Schueren for his comments on the
first version of draft-piraux-quic-tunnel. Thanks to Florin Baboescu
for his comments on the first version of this document.
Authors' Addresses
Piraux, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft QUIC Tunnel November 2020
Maxime Piraux
UCLouvain
Email: maxime.piraux@uclouvain.be
Olivier Bonaventure
UCLouvain
Email: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be
Adi Masputra
Apple Inc.
Email: adi@apple.com
Piraux, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 11]
