Internet DRAFT - draft-westerlund-masque-transport-issues

draft-westerlund-masque-transport-issues







MASQUE                                                     M. Westerlund
Internet-Draft                                                  M. Ihlar
Intended status: Informational                                 Z. Sarker
Expires: 11 January 2021                                   M. Kuehlewind
                                                                Ericsson
                                                            10 July 2020


       Transport Considerations for IP and UDP Proxying in MASQUE
              draft-westerlund-masque-transport-issues-00

Abstract

   The HTTP Connect method uses back-to-back TCP connections to and from
   a proxy.  Such a solution takes care of many transport aspects as
   well as IP Flow related concerns.  With UDP and IP proxying on the
   other hand, there are several per-packet and per-flow aspects that
   need consideration to preserve the properties of end- to-end IP/UDP
   flows.  The aim of this document is to highlight and provide
   solutions for these issues related to UDP and IP proxying.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

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

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/gloinul/draft-westerlund-masque-transport-issues
   (https://github.com/gloinul/draft-westerlund-masque-transport-
   issues).

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




Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   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 11 January 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  HTTP Connect  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  TURN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.4.  HTTP Connect-UDP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.  Review of IP Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.1.  Base Header Fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.1.  Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.2.  DSCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.3.  ECN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.1.4.  Identification, Flags, and Fragmentation offset
               (IPv4 Only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.1.5.  Flow Label (IPv6 Only)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.1.6.  Total Length / Payload length . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.1.7.  Protocol / Next Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.1.8.  Time to Live / Hop Limit  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.1.9.  Header Checksum (IPv4 Only) . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.1.10. Source and Destination Address  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.2.  IPv4 Options Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.3.  IPv6 Extension Headers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   3.  Review of UDP Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.1.  Source and Destination Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.2.  UDP Length  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.3.  UDP Checksum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  ICMP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.1.  IPv6 Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16



Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


     5.2.  IPv4 Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.1.  UDP Flow Information and configuration  . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.2.  Potential Per Packet Information  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.3.  Event based Interactions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21

1.  Introduction

   This document examines several aspects related to UDP [RFC0768] over
   IP [RFC0791] [RFC8200] (IP/UDP) flows when they are proxied according
   to the MASQUE proposal over QUIC and using HTTP CONNECT method for
   flow establishment (Connect-UDP) [I-D.schinazi-masque-connect-udp].
   It also looks at how transport protocols on top of UDP use this
   information and contrast that with both the HTTP Connect method
   [RFC7231] using either TCP [RFC0793] or QUIC
   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] as well as the methods used by the TURN
   protocol [RFC8656].

   Aspects discussed include ECN [RFC3168], Differentiated Services
   Field and its codepoint (DSCP) [RFC2474], Fragmentation and MTU, ICMP
   [RFC0792], IPv6 FLOW ID [RFC8200], IPv6 Extension headers, and IPv4
   Options [RFC0791].  This document also discusses the use of the UDP
   checksum and the UDP Length field usage related to UDP Options
   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport].

1.1.  Definitions

   *  UDP Flow: A sequence of UDP packets sharing a 5-tuple.

   *  ECN: Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168].

   *  DSCP: Differentiated Service Code Point [RFC2474].

   *  Proxy: This document uses proxy as synonym for the MASQUE Server
      or an HTTP proxy, depending on context.

   *  Client: The endpoint initiating a MASQUE tunnel and UDP/IP
      relaying with the proxy.

   *  Target: A remote endpoint the client wishes to establish bi-
      directional communication with.





Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   *  UDP proxying: A proxy forwarding data to a target over an UDP
      "connection".  Data is decapsulate at the proxy and amended by a
      UDP and IP header before forwarding to the target.  Datagram
      boundaries need to be preserved or signalled between the client
      and proxy.

   *  IP proxying: A proxy forwarding data to a target over an IP
      "connection".  Data is decapsulate at the proxy and amended by a
      IP header before forwarding to the target.  Packet boundaries need
      to be preserved or signalled between the client and proxy.

   Address = IP address + UDP port

                        Target Address --+
                                          \
   +--------+           +--------+         \ +--------+
   |        |  Path #1  |        | Path #2  V|        |
   | Client |<--------->|  Proxy |<--------->| Target |
   |        |          ^|        |^          |        |
   +--------+         / +--------+ \         +--------+
                     /              \
                    /                +-- Proxy's external address
                   /
                  +-- Proxy's service address

                  Figure 1: The nodes and their addresses

   Figure 1 provides an overview figure of the involved nodes, i.e.
   Client, Proxy, and Target, that are discussed below.  We use the name
   target for the node or endpoint the client intends to communicate
   with via the proxy.  There are also two network paths.  Path #1 is
   the client to proxy path, where the MASQUE protocol will be used over
   an HTTP/3 session, usually over QUIC, to tunnel IP/UDP flow(s).  Path
   #2 is the path between the Proxy and the Target.

   The client will use the proxy's service address to establish a
   transport connection on which to communicate with the proxy using the
   MASQUE protocol.  The MASQUE protocol will be used to establish the
   relaying of a IP/UDP flow from the client using as the source address
   the proxy's external address and sending to the target address.  In
   addition, after establishment, the reverse is also configured on the
   proxy; IP/UDP packets sent from the target address to the proxy's
   external address will be relayed to the client.








Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


1.2.  HTTP Connect

   The HTTP Connect method [RFC7231] is defined such that the HTTP proxy
   that receives the request will set up a TCP connection towards a
   provided (or resolved) target address.  After the TCP connection has
   been established, the proxy will connect the byte stream from the
   client to the byte stream of the new TCP connection.  On byte stream
   level this is only tunneling.  On the transport level on the other
   hand, two distinct transport connections are established.  If the
   client to proxy connection is HTTP/3, i.e. over QUIC, the basic HTTP
   Connect method will still lead to TCP connection establishment from
   proxy to the target servers.  In this case the client to proxy QUIC
   stream's byte stream is connected to the proxy to server TCP
   connection.  For simplicity and clarify the rest of the document will
   use back to back TCP sessions as a comparison.

   Due to the byte stream semantics and the use of transport protocol
   proxying, most of the transport implications of the header fields and
   their values are handled on a per path basis, e.g. response to ECN
   Congestion Experienced (CE) marks.  Some information that may be end-
   to-end related, such as DSCP values, can be copied or translated
   between the connections if supported by the proxy.  MTU is mostly
   irrelevant and handled fully due to the byte stream nature of the
   data flowing in the connection.  If the MTU differs between the two
   paths the number of packets required to send a particular data object
   may differ as well.  However, the impact of that is small and depends
   on the amount of buffering between the two connections.  There is no
   requirement to have a one-to-one correspondence of packets between
   the two TCP connections.

1.3.  TURN

   "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to
   Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)" [RFC8656] is a solution
   for relaying UDP datagrams.  However, it is a hybrid between a purely
   encapsulating tunnel and proxying.  A somewhat simplified description
   of the protocol follows below.

   A client makes a TURN request over a TCP/TLS connection to a TURN
   server to authenticate itself and acquire a long-term secret.  Note
   that subsequent requests are secured using keying material from the
   long term secret exchange.  Next, the client can send a request over
   UDP to be allocated a UDP port number on one of the server's external
   IP addresses.  After that, the client knows the IP address and UDP
   port number that will be used for the TURN server's side of any UDP
   flow sent to or received from the remote target.





Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   A TURN client can send UDP packets in two ways.  The first solution
   is to include a send indication for each UDP packet to be relayed.
   The send indications contains the target destination address and
   port.  The other solution is to create a binding, where a channel ID
   between the client and TURN server is bound to a specific 5-tuple
   from the TURN Server to the target destination.  The established
   channel is bi-directional.  When a channel has been established, UDP
   packets can be relayed with a low overhead of 4 bytes.

   To receive UDP packets on the allocated port, the client must specify
   what source address and port (target address) is to be allowed, this
   is called establishing a permission.  Binding a channel creates a
   permission at the same time.  When the TURN server receives a UDP
   packet from an external source where permission exists but no
   channel, it will relay the data using a DATA indication, which
   includes the source address.

   A relevant aspect for the rest of the discussion in this document is
   that TURN has a one to one mapping between IP/UDP/TURN messages
   between client and TURN server and the IP/UDP packet received or sent
   on the external side.  Also, though TURN messages and indications
   include header information in the UDP payload, there are distinct IP/
   UDP headers on each side of the TURN server.  Because of this the
   TURN protocol is able to preserve the per flow and per packet
   functionalities that exist in IP/UDP headers.  For instance, ECN and
   DSCP markings associated with specific packets are preserved by the
   relay by copying or translating them from incoming packets to
   outgoing packets.

1.4.  HTTP Connect-UDP

   The MASQUE WG is chartered to work on the tunneling of UDP datagrams
   in a QUIC connection between client and a MASQUE server (We will
   refer to the MASQUE server as a proxy in the rest of this document to
   align with the basic HTTP Connect terminology).  The proxy forwards
   tunneled UDP payload to the correct target address.  An HTTP Connect-
   UDP request is used to establish the tunnel and provide the required
   addressing information.

   In the review performed in this document we make the assumption that
   it is desirable to minimize the per-packet overhead.  Specifically,
   we assume that IP/UDP header information from packets exchanged
   between the proxy and target will not be sent within the tunnel.  The
   initial relay exchange establishment needs to be performed for each
   target the client wants to communicate with, i.e.  one relay exchange
   per IP/UDP flow on the proxy to target path.  Keeping this state in
   the proxy on a per UDP flow basis appears trivial.  Therefore, the




Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   review will determine what IP/UDP state is required per flow and what
   is per per packet information.

   In this review we also aim to identify the impact on the end-to-end
   flows by using QUIC as a tunneling protocol, both in stream and/or
   datagram mode.  Properties of IP/UDP flows and higher level transport
   protocols such as QUIC or RTP will be considered.

   Two high level observations need to be made when comparing Connect-
   UDP to TURN.  The first is that QUIC is a proper transport protocol
   with congestion control.  This means that there might not be a one-
   to-one mapping between events that impact the transport, such as
   congestion indications, on either path relative to the proxy.  The
   second observation is that tunneled UDP datagrams can be coalesced in
   a single UDP datagram with either multiple QUIC packets, or multiple
   QUIC datagram frames in a single QUIC packet.  If reliable streams
   are used instead of datagram frames, then a UDP payload may even be
   fragmented over multiple UDP packets containing QUIC packets.

   This all motivates a very careful consideration of the IP and UDP
   header information and how that needs to be handled on flow level or
   per packet level to avoid breaking end-to-end transport properties
   for the flow.

2.  Review of IP Header

2.1.  Base Header Fields

   This section reviews the header fields in IPv4 [RFC0791] and IPv6
   [RFC8200].  It will note which field are version specific.  Size
   differences are not considered in the review as it is focused on
   functionality and impact.

2.1.1.  Version

   The proxy needs to know which IP version to use on the proxy to
   target path.  If an explicit IP address is included in the Connect-
   UDP request, the proxy would know this directly from the IP address
   format.  In the case where a domain name is used to obtain the target
   IP address, the IP version needs to be specified or be based on
   preferences when resolving the domain name.

   It should be noted that different IP versions may be used on the two
   paths requiring the proxy to do translation.  This can also lead to
   scenarios whereby version specific information carried on one path
   does not translate to the version used on the other path.





Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


2.1.2.  DSCP

   Diffserv code points are primarily used to indicate forwarding
   behavior.  Codepoints on IP/UDP flows on the proxy to target path are
   either set on a flow level or packet level.  Codepoints set on a flow
   level are set at flow instantiation and can be updated during ongoing
   relaying.

   A DSCP value received on IP/UDP packets in the target to proxy
   direction may be propagated to the Proxy to client path.  However,
   that is problematic when the datagram is tunneled in QUIC.  The DART
   considerations [RFC7657] for connection oriented transport applies
   here.  If multiple DSCPs are used for a single connection, then there
   would be a need for having separate congestion control states for the
   different forwarding behaviors, which would likely require QUIC
   protocol extensions.  The same issue exists for packets sent by the
   client on the client to proxy path.

   Different forwarding behaviors in both directions of the path
   connecting the client and the proxy could be enabled without a QUIC
   extension by establishing individual QUIC connections per forwarding
   behavior used.  However, this requires that the proxy is able to bind
   multiple QUIC connections received from the client into a single IP/
   UDP flow on the proxy to target path.  This could have significant
   security model implications as authorization would be needed to add
   subsequent bindings to an existing flow.

   Let's consider the capability for the proxy to send packets with
   packet-level DSCP marks towards the target.  That would require at a
   minimum a per packet indication mechanism and would enable different
   forwarding behaviors on the proxy to target path.  Similarly, a per
   packet mechanism would be needed for the proxy to be able to relay
   DSCP values received from the target towards the client.  The
   usefulness of the latter would be to ensure that the transport
   protocol on top of MASQUE is able to determine whether there is a
   need for multiple congestion control states for different sub-sets of
   packets within the received IP/UDP flow.  WebRTC IP/UDP flows could
   have this property.

   The most basic DSCP relay capability would be to set the same DSCP
   value on all IP/UDP packets sent by the proxy to the same target for
   a specific IP/UDP flow.  This capability would only require
   signalling of the desired value at flow establishment.  A mechanism
   to update the DSCP value for an ongoing flow should also be
   considered.

   Another issue with DSCP mapping to forwarding behaviors is that the
   mappings are defined per network location, typically within one



Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   administrative domain of routing.  Therefore they may be remapped on
   the different paths relative to the proxy.  When the client and proxy
   reside in two different administrative domains there will be an
   additional challenge for the client to use the right DSCP value.
   Thus, support for DSCP in the MASQUE protocol should either be
   limited to consider per hop behavior or the use of a mapping table
   such that the proxy can translate an incoming DSCP value to a locally
   used value.

2.1.3.  ECN

   The Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] field carries
   per packet path signals about congestion.  The discussion of ECN
   capability can be split into two parts, one for each path relative to
   the proxy.  On the client to proxy path the QUIC connection used for
   tunneling the UDP datagrams can enable and use ECN on that path
   specifically.  Any congestion experienced (ECN-CE) marking on that
   path impacts the congestion window of the client to proxy QUIC
   connection, thus indirectly affecting the end-to-end flow.

   The capability to use ECN on the proxy to target path requires proxy
   protocol support.  This will enable the end-to-end usage of ECN in
   the upper layer transport protocol.  To support ECN end-to-end when
   using MASQUE proxy two functionalities need to exist.

   First, the capability of setting the ECN field value (Not-ECT,
   ECT(1), ECT(0)) on any IP/UDP packets sent from proxy to target.
   This value can be set initially but may be changed during ongoing IP/
   UDP flow proxying, as the end-to-end transport may subsequently
   determine that the path is not ECN capable.

   Secondly, the client must be able to receive per packet indications
   of the ECN field value for every packet received by the proxy from
   the target.  This ensures that the upper layer transport protocol
   receives ECN information per relayed UDP datagram.  The information
   will be used to react to ECN-CE (Congestion Experienced) marks and
   for validation of the ECN path capability.

   A solution like TURN's [RFC8656] translation of ECN markings between
   the two paths is not possible for multiple reasons.  First, ECN marks
   on the client to proxy path will be consumed and reacted to by the
   QUIC connection used for tunneling.  Second, the previously discussed
   lack of a one-to-one relationship of IP/UDP packets prevents accurate
   tracking of the ECN markings and will make the end-to-end validation
   fail.  Therefore additional explicit signaling between the proxy and
   the client would be needed.





Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


2.1.4.  Identification, Flags, and Fragmentation offset (IPv4 Only)

   These fields are used for the IPv4 fragmentation solution.  The
   authors are of the opinion that IP level fragmentation should be
   avoided.  However, since there are no guarantees for a one-to-one
   packet relation between the two paths relative to the proxy, any IPv4
   fragments will need re-assembly upon reception by the endpoints and
   the proxy.

   To support Path MTU Discovery the Don't Fragment (DF) bit needs to be
   set for all outgoing IP/UDP packets from the proxy to the target.
   Per flow or per packet setting of this bit needs to be supported.

2.1.5.  Flow Label (IPv6 Only)

   The IPv6 flow label is used by the network to identify flows, for
   example to prevent a single flow to be spread over multiple paths
   when load balancing based on Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) routing
   [RFC6438] is performed.  The flow label should be set by the endpoint
   originating the IP/UDP flow, as it knows when a flow qualifies for a
   unique IPv6 flow label.  Thus, it is expected that one IPv6 flow
   label will be used for the IP/UDP flow that carries the client to
   proxy QUIC connection, and one for each IP/UDP flow established by
   the MASQUE protocol to different target addresses.

   Based on the above reasoning it does not seem like there is a need
   for the MASQUE protocol to explicitly signal or indicate flow labels.

2.1.6.  Total Length / Payload length

   The Total Length (IPv4) / Payload length (IPv6) fields contain the
   size of the IP packet, either directly for IPv4, or indirectly in
   IPv6 (by providing the length after the fixed 40-byte header, i.e.
   for extension headers and data).

   These field are necessary for the processing on reception, however it
   does not need to be communicated on a per packet-basis to the client,
   or be provided by the client, with a single potential exception that
   is discussed in the context of the UDP length field (Section 3.2).

2.1.7.  Protocol / Next Header

   The Protocol (IPv4) and Next Header (IPv6) fields provide the
   identification of the upper layer protocol, in this case UDP.  For
   IPv6 one or more extension headers may first be identified in a chain
   before arriving at UDP.





Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   The use of UDP relaying will need to be signalled explicitly to
   separate it from other types of relaying, such as the IP tunneling/
   relaying discussed in the MASQUE charter.

2.1.8.  Time to Live / Hop Limit

   The purpose of the Time to Live (IPv4) and Hop Limit (IPv6) fields is
   to prevent packets from having an infinite life time in case of
   routing loops.  The acronym TTL is used from here on to describe any
   of these fields.  TTL limits the number of routing hops a packet
   survives and should result in an ICMP message back to the sender when
   it expires.  Therefore, it is possible to use TTL for investigating
   network paths.

   It is not clear if such a mechanism needs to be supported in a MASQUE
   protocol context.  If something like trace-route is to be supported,
   per packet setting of the TTL field would be needed.

   The need for echoing the TTL field value on reception of a IP/UDP
   packet from the target to the client appears also very limited.  The
   value set on transmission of a packet is usually an operating system
   set default value.

   The authors believe that the proxy's default values are sufficient
   for the MASQUE protocol functionality.

2.1.9.  Header Checksum (IPv4 Only)

   The IPv4 checksum field verifies the integrity against non-
   intentional errors in transmission or processing of the IP header.
   IPv6 lacks this checksum and instead relies on the transport protocol
   checksum.

   The value is generated when an IP packet is transmitted from the
   proxy and verified on reception.  No further functionality required.

2.1.10.  Source and Destination Address

   On the path from the proxy to the target, the source address will be
   the proxy's external address applied when relaying the IP/UDP
   packets.  This address will be determined as part of the IP/UDP flow
   tunneling establishment and should be signalled back to the client by
   the proxy.  The destination address used will be the target's IP
   address.

   The source addresses used on the client to proxy path are only needed
   for the communication between the client and proxy and are part of
   the QUIC connection's state.  Thus, the possibility to change it will



Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   depend on the mechanisms in QUIC for dealing with client address
   migration or multi-path.  Further discussion should not be needed.

   In case of IP proxying, as the proxy cannot utilize port numbers, the
   proxy might need to maintain multiple external IP addresses in order
   to identify different forwarding processes for packet received from
   multiple target servers.  If the proxy is guaranteed to be on-path
   between the client and server the proxy could also conserve the
   client's source IP address as it's external address.

   The source and destination addresses are therefore part of the
   fundamental state for IP/UDP flow relaying and need to be established
   at initiation.  The 2 (IP proxying) or 5-tuple (IP/UDP proxying) from
   the proxy to the target and the reverse tuple needs to be explicitly
   signalled.  The client either needs to explicitly provide the target
   IP address or a domain name that the proxy can resolve to a target IP
   address.  The proxy needs to notify the client about which source IP
   address it uses when sending on the proxy to target path.

2.2.  IPv4 Options Header

   The use of IPv4 Options header on the general Internet is very
   limited.  It is therefore likely that no functionality is required.

2.3.  IPv6 Extension Headers

   One IPv6 Extension header that needs discussion here is the
   fragmentation header.  Although it is the IP originating node that
   adds the fragmentation header, the MASQUE protocol will likely need
   to control whether IPv6 fragmentation should be used or not, in the
   same way as for the IPv4 DF bit.

   Some existing IPv6 extension headers could be added by the
   originating node.  Whether they require any explicit signalling or
   relaying of data to the client needs to be investigated further.
   Especially Hop-by-Hop options, such as the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-
   by-Hop Option [I-D.ietf-6man-mtu-option].

   There are also some individual proposals for extension header that
   might matter in the future: Network Tokens
   [I-D.yiakoumis-network-tokens], IPv6 Truncate Option
   [I-D.leddy-6man-truncate].  Thus, consideration needs to be made if
   there are necessary to future proof the Masque protocol, at least to
   enable future extensions to support per packet Extension headers.







Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


3.  Review of UDP Header

3.1.  Source and Destination Port

   For UDP proxying, the UDP destination port is used by endpoints to
   locate the destination process that should consume a specific UDP
   datagram.  Source Ports can be used by the receiving application to
   separate flows based on the 5-tuple.

   As discussed in Section 2.1.10 the UDP source and destination ports
   are part of the 5-tuple and needs to be communicated on IP/UDP flow
   establishment.

3.2.  UDP Length

   The UDP length field specifies the UDP payload length in octets.

   The UDP length field normally indicates that the UDP payload fills up
   the remainder of the IP packet.  However, this is not always the
   case.  Specifically, UDP options [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] are
   designed to make use of the surplus area between the end of the UDP
   data section and the end of the IP packet.

   Thus, for the MASQUE protocol to preserve the capability to carry UDP
   options in UDP relaying this surplus area and the UDP payload data
   length field need to transmitted from client to proxy in both
   directions.

3.3.  UDP Checksum

   The UDP checksum verifies the UDP datagram headers and payload and
   the pseudo header with IP layer information.  The UDP checksum should
   always be verified by the receiving party.  The UDP checksum may also
   be set to zero to provide no verification.  This is primarily used by
   tunnel encapsulation formats.  If it is desired to send IP/UDP flows
   from the proxy to the target address with a zero UDP checksum, the
   MASQUE protocol needs to support an indication of this desire.

   The use of zero UDP checksum for IPv6 is more restricted than for
   IPv4 due to the lack of a IP header checksum [RFC6936].

   The authors do not believe it is necessary to be able to send IP/UDP
   datagrams with a zero UDP checksum.  It is also not necessary to
   relay the UDP checksum generated by the target, since the QUIC
   protocol will provide stronger cryptographic integrity verification
   of the UDP datagram payload.  Also, for the target generated checksum
   to be meaningful to the client the complete datagram and pseudo
   header would need to be reconstructed, which in would likely require



Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   extra processing and copying of data.  Though some cases of erroneous
   handling of IP/UDP header fields by the MASQUE protocol could be
   detected in this way, it is not deemed to be worth the effort.

   For the packets the client sends to be relayed to the target
   destination, having the client create a UDP checksum would provide
   some protection against processing or implementation errors, although
   the overhead and extra processing is likely not worth the effort.

   In addition the calculation and verification of the transport header
   checksum is one of these aspects that can be offloaded to hardware in
   a proxy.

4.  ICMP

   Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) [RFC0792][RFC4443] messages
   are useful hints on why sent IP packets appear to disappear in the
   network.  Especially for what might appear to be intermittent issues,
   such as exceeding the MTU of the path.

   Lets start with clarifying which ICMP messages may be relevant to
   handle in the MASQUE protocol.  The primary concern is to ensure that
   the client receives any ICMP responses that are sent back to the
   proxy as result of packets the client had relayed through the proxy
   towards the target destination.  The proxy should validate and
   identify ICMP messages that relate to a particular IP/UDP flow that
   the proxy sends.  The relevant ICMP information, i.e. Type and Code
   as well as any included bytes from the packets that can be used to
   identify the actual IP/UDP packet in the client, should be sent to
   the client.  Such a functionality would enable the the client to
   receive Packet Too Big messages that speeds up Path MTU Discovery
   (Section 5).  It also enables the client to learn when there appears
   to be no one at the target address, i.e. the port, host or network
   unreachable codes.

   IP/UDP packets reaching the proxy from a target address may result in
   that ICMP messages are sent back to the target.  For example a port
   unreachable message would be sent if a packet arrives after the
   client has terminated the tunneling session.

   Any ICMP packets that result from IP/UDP packets exchanged between
   the client and the proxy, related to the QUIC connection is to be
   validated and consumed by the QUIC implementation.

   Thus, depending on the ICMP message, the MASQUE protocol needs to
   consider a mechanism for the proxy to indicate to the client that it
   has received and validated ICMP messages.  If the ICMP message
   indicates a connection failure, HTTP response error codes can be



Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   used.  However, for HTTP Connect-UDP the response code was sent when
   the UDP socket was created, while an ICMP message would only be
   received after UDP packets have been relayed.

5.  Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)

   The MTU available for the UDP payload depends on whether the QUIC
   connection uses datagrams or streams to carry the UDP payload on the
   client to proxy path.  When streams are used, the outer QUIC
   connection can fragment and re-assembly UDP Payloads of any size.  In
   this case any MTU issues will arise on the proxy to target path.

   When using datagrams, unless the QUIC datagram extension provides a
   fragmentation solution, then the outer QUIC connection will provide a
   MTU that is dependent on the largest datagram payload that can be
   transmitted.  A potential issue is that this might be variable over
   time, both due to underlying path changes, and to variable elements
   of the QUIC protocol.  However, a base overhead from the QUIC headers
   should be possible to calculate based on the maximum QUIC packet
   size.  Depending on the amount of per packet information needed to be
   provided additional headroom for the MASQUE encapsulation may be
   required.

   To enable PMTUD discovery certain aspects are needed or greatly
   simplify the process.

   *  Ensure that the DF bit is set to Don't Fragment on outgoing IPv4/
      UDP packets from the proxy to the target.  For IPv6 the use of the
      fragmentation header needs to be prevented.

   *  Have the proxy signal back to the client its current interface MTU
      limit for packets that will be sent from proxy to target.

   *  Have the tunneling QUIC connection expose the current MTU for
      datagrams to the MASQUE implementation.  This is likely dynamic
      and can be updated at any point.

   *  Returning ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) message from the proxy to the
      client when packets are dropped due to MTU on the proxy to target
      path.

   It should be noted that unless the QUIC datagram extension provides a
   fragmentation mechanism this will in many scenarios be the most
   likely MTU bottleneck and there is no work around for it, the IP/UDP
   tunneled traffic will need to fit or be dropped.






Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


5.1.  IPv6 Fragmentation

   Reassembly of received traffic will occur on each node, Client,
   Proxy, and Target.  The need for IP level fragmentation should be
   avoided, by having the working MTU be propagated up.  Initial MTU
   signaling should exist for the flow.  However, this is potentially
   dynamic and a PMTUD process running for the outer QUIC tunnel on the
   client to proxy path will update the supported MTU.

   An option for controlling if fragmentation should occur or not by the
   Proxy should be considered.

5.2.  IPv4 Fragmentation

   As IPv4 fragmentation is flexible and allows an on-path node to
   fragment a packet, enabling fragmentation may reduce the MTU issues.
   However, Path MTU Discovery is recommended instead, for the following
   reasons:

   *  Fragmentation increases the packet loss rate.

   *  IP fragments do not traverse NATs and Firewalls well.  Which is
      especially relevant for MASQUE as significant deployments will be
      clients in access or residential networks that have NATs or
      Firewalls on the path from the client to the proxy.

6.  Summary

   Lets sum up the aspects of the IP/UDP header fields and related
   protocols in a couple of categorizes.

6.1.  UDP Flow Information and configuration

   This section contains header fields whose value either will be static
   for a given IP/UDP flow, apply until changes, or can be used as
   default values when per packet values are not given.

   First of all, the IP source and destination address as well as UDP
   source and port information is directly related to the establishment
   of a bi-directional IP/UDP flow between proxy and the target.  The
   desired IP version also needs to be indicated if the address is
   expressed as hostname, but otherwise would be given by the format of
   the address.  The target always needs to be provided by the client.
   Since there are cases where the client would need to know the
   external address used by the proxy towards the target, there needs to
   be a way for the client to request this information.





Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   The upper layer protocols between the client and the target might
   have different capabilities of using ECN.  Therefore it is necessary
   to be able to signal whether the ECN fields in proxy to target
   packets should be set to Not-ECT, ECT(0) or ECT(1).

   If a DSCP marking other than 0, i.e. best effort, is desired then a
   default value could be set as part of the relay establishment.  This
   value could potentially be overridden on a per packet basis or be
   changed at a future point in the relayed flows lifetime.

   A don't fragment setting could likely be defaulted to be always true.
   However, we invite further discussion if there are cases where it
   would be better to enable IP level fragmentation for some packets, or
   for all.

   The Hop Limit could likely be using node default values, unless
   someone raises a use case where they actually want to modulate the
   value on per packet basis or set an explicit value for the IP/UDP
   flow.

   The MTU known by the proxy towards the indicated target should be
   signalled back at relay establishment by the proxy.

6.2.  Potential Per Packet Information

   This section contains information that would be necessary to
   associate with a specific packet when the client request sending or
   the proxy relays a received packet.

   For each packet the proxy receives the ECN field's value need to be
   relayed to the client so that the upper layer can respond to either a
   CE marking indicating congestion, or any remarking.

   There are examples where IP/UDP flows contain packets that do not
   have uniform DSCP marking.  To enable sending of such streams, any
   DSCP value other the default value would need to be indicated by the
   client to the proxy.

   If it is desired to verify the UDP Checksum in the client to avoid
   any potential errors the MASQUE protocol implementation may cause the
   received UDP checksum value would need to be relayed to the client.
   The UDP checksum value could also be calculated by the client and
   included.

   To support UDP Options, the UDP option and their values needs to be
   signalled.





Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   If support for including IPv6 Extension Headers that needs client
   side information then the extension header information would need to
   be indicated by the client and also tunnelled.

6.3.  Event based Interactions

   This section summarizes information that are triggered by events and
   not directly connected to a specific packet in the IP/UDP flow being
   relayed.  Instead these are more of the nature of asynchronous events
   caused by the network, the upper layer transport protocol, or
   application.

   The ECN setting for packets sent by the proxy to the target may need
   to change.  If the upper layer transport protocol determines that the
   end-to-end path is not ECN capable it will need to change an ECT
   marking to Not-ECT.  Some protocols may defer probing for ECT
   capability until after some initial handshake and packet exchange has
   occurred.

   The upper layer application may change its desired forwarding
   behavior for the packets in the IP/UDP stream, thus the need for the
   client to change the default applied DSCP value on packets sent by
   the proxy to target.

   The reception of ICMP messages by the proxy will likely be the result
   of a packet sent to the target but the cause is likely in the
   network.  When this occurs the client needs to be informed of this
   ICMP message, especially when this event leads to a connection
   failure.

   The proxy may detect an MTU change on the proxy to target path due to
   received ICMP messages that are consumed in the IP stack of the proxy
   and affecting the MTU for outgoing packets.  Thus, the proxy may need
   to indicate to the client that it no longer can send non-fragmented
   packets larger than the new MTU.

7.  Conclusion

   This document shows that many of the fields in the IP/UDP header can
   be signaled initially at flow establishment.  Especially IP addresses
   and potentially ports need to be communicated as those also need to
   be used for flow identification.  It also shows that certain field
   values or related information needs to be relayed or signalled based
   on asynchronous application or network events.  Other field
   information could need per packet relaying.  The latter requires a
   more active bidirectional communication channel between the proxy and
   the client.




Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


   These aspects need to be taken into account in the future protocol
   development of the CONNECT-UDP method to ensure that the MASQUE
   protocol doesn't prevent future IP and transport protocol evolution.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
              Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
              and Secure Transport", Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-
              transport-29, 9 June 2020,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-
              transport-29.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]
              Touch, J., "Transport Options for UDP", Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-08, 12 September 2019,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-
              options-08.txt>.

   [I-D.schinazi-masque-connect-udp]
              Schinazi, D., "The CONNECT-UDP HTTP Method", Internet-
              Draft, draft-schinazi-masque-connect-udp-00, 16 April
              2020, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schinazi-
              masque-connect-udp-00.txt>.

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",




Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-6man-mtu-option]
              Hinden, R. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-
              by-Hop Option", Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-mtu-
              option-02, 9 March 2020,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-mtu-
              option-02.txt>.

   [I-D.leddy-6man-truncate]
              Leddy, J., Bonica, R., and I. Lubashev, "IPv6 Packet
              Truncation", Internet-Draft, draft-leddy-6man-truncate-05,
              10 October 2018,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-leddy-6man-
              truncate-05.txt>.

   [I-D.yiakoumis-network-tokens]
              Yiakoumis, Y., McKeown, N., and F. Sorensen, "Network
              Tokens", Internet-Draft, draft-yiakoumis-network-tokens-
              01, 18 June 2020,
              <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yiakoumis-
              network-tokens-01.txt>.

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
              RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC6438]  Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
              for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
              Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.

   [RFC6936]  Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
              for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",



Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft     Transport Considerations for MASQUE         July 2020


              RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

   [RFC7657]  Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
              (Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.

   [RFC8656]  Reddy, T., Ed., Johnston, A., Ed., Matthews, P., and J.
              Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN):
              Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT
              (STUN)", RFC 8656, DOI 10.17487/RFC8656, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8656>.

Authors' Addresses

   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson

   Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com


   Marcus Ihlar
   Ericsson

   Email: marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com


   Zaheduzzaman Sarker
   Ericsson

   Email: zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com


   Mirja Kuehlewind
   Ericsson

   Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com








Westerlund, et al.       Expires 11 January 2021               [Page 21]