Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip

draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip







MASQUE                                                     T. Pauly, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                Apple Inc.
Updates: 9298 (if approved)                                  D. Schinazi
Intended status: Standards Track                       A. Chernyakhovsky
Expires: 30 October 2023                                      Google LLC
                                                           M. Kuehlewind
                                                           M. Westerlund
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           28 April 2023


                          Proxying IP in HTTP
                    draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-13

Abstract

   This document describes how to proxy IP packets in HTTP.  This
   protocol is similar to UDP proxying in HTTP, but allows transmitting
   arbitrary IP packets.  More specifically, this document defines a
   protocol that allows an HTTP client to create an IP tunnel through an
   HTTP server that acts as an IP proxy.  This document updates RFC
   9298.

About This Document

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

   The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://ietf-wg-
   masque.github.io/draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip/draft-ietf-masque-
   connect-ip.html.  Status information for this document may be found
   at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip/.

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

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip.

Status of This Memo

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







Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   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 30 October 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Configuration of Clients  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Tunnelling IP over HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  IP Proxy Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  HTTP/1.1 Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  HTTP/1.1 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.5.  HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.6.  Limiting Request Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.7.  Capsules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.7.1.  ADDRESS_ASSIGN Capsule  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.7.2.  ADDRESS_REQUEST Capsule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.7.3.  ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT Capsule . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.8.  IPv6 Extension Headers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  Context Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   6.  HTTP Datagram Payload Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  IP Packet Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.1.  Link Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.2.  Routing Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


       7.2.1.  Error Signalling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   8.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     8.1.  Remote Access VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     8.2.  Site-to-Site VPN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     8.3.  IP Flow Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     8.4.  Proxied Connection Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   9.  Extensibility Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   10. Performance Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     10.1.  MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     10.2.  ECN Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     10.3.  Differentiated Services Considerations . . . . . . . . .  32
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     12.1.  HTTP Upgrade Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     12.2.  Creation of the MASQUE URI Suffixes Registry . . . . . .  34
     12.3.  Updates to masque Well-Known URI . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     12.4.  Capsule Type Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40

1.  Introduction

   HTTP provides the CONNECT method (see Section 9.3.6 of [HTTP]) for
   creating a TCP [TCP] tunnel to a destination and a similar mechanism
   for UDP [CONNECT-UDP].  However, these mechanisms cannot tunnel other
   IP protocols [IANA-PN] nor convey fields of the IP header.

   This document describes a protocol for tunnelling IP through an HTTP
   server acting as an IP-specific proxy over HTTP.  This can be used
   for various use cases such as remote access VPN, site-to-site VPN,
   secure point-to-point communication, or general-purpose packet
   tunnelling.

   IP proxying operates similarly to UDP proxying [CONNECT-UDP], whereby
   the proxy itself is identified with an absolute URL, optionally
   containing the traffic's destination.  Clients generate these URLs
   using a URI Template [TEMPLATE], as described in Section 3.

   This protocol supports all existing versions of HTTP by using HTTP
   Datagrams [HTTP-DGRAM].  When using HTTP/2 [HTTP/2] or HTTP/3
   [HTTP/3], it uses HTTP Extended CONNECT as described in
   [EXT-CONNECT2] and [EXT-CONNECT3].  When using HTTP/1.x [HTTP/1.1],
   it uses HTTP Upgrade as defined in Section 7.8 of [HTTP].





Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   This document updates [CONNECT-UDP] to change the "masque" well-known
   URI, see Section 12.3.

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.

   In this document, we use the term "IP proxy" to refer to the HTTP
   server that responds to the IP proxying request.  The term "client"
   is used in the HTTP sense; the client constructs the IP proxying
   request.  If there are HTTP intermediaries (as defined in Section 3.7
   of [HTTP]) between the client and the IP proxy, those are referred to
   as "intermediaries" in this document.  The term "IP proxying
   endpoints" refers to both the client and the IP proxy.

   This document uses terminology from [QUIC].  Where this document
   defines protocol types, the definition format uses the notation from
   Section 1.3 of [QUIC].  This specification uses the variable-length
   integer encoding from Section 16 of [QUIC].  Variable-length integer
   values do not need to be encoded in the minimum number of bytes
   necessary.

   Note that, when the HTTP version in use does not support multiplexing
   streams (such as HTTP/1.1), any reference to "stream" in this
   document represents the entire connection.

3.  Configuration of Clients

   Clients are configured to use IP proxying over HTTP via a URI
   Template [TEMPLATE].  The URI Template MAY contain two variables:
   "target" and "ipproto"; see Section 4.6.  The optionality of the
   variables needs to be considered when defining the template so that
   either the variable is self-identifying or it is possible to exclude
   it in the syntax.

   Examples are shown below:

   https://example.org/.well-known/masque/ip/{target}/{ipproto}/
   https://proxy.example.org:4443/masque/ip?t={target}&i={ipproto}
   https://proxy.example.org:4443/masque/ip{?target,ipproto}
   https://masque.example.org/?user=bob

                      Figure 1: URI Template Examples




Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   The following requirements apply to the URI Template:

   *  The URI Template MUST be a level 3 template or lower.

   *  The URI Template MUST be in absolute form, and MUST include non-
      empty scheme, authority and path components.

   *  The path component of the URI Template MUST start with a slash
      "/".

   *  All template variables MUST be within the path or query components
      of the URI.

   *  The URI Template MAY contain the two variables "target" and
      "ipproto" and MAY contain other variables.  If the "target" or
      "ipproto" variables are included, their values MUST NOT be empty.
      Clients can instead use "*" to indicate wildcard or no-preference
      values; see Section 4.6.

   *  The URI Template MUST NOT contain any non-ASCII unicode characters
      and MUST only contain ASCII characters in the range 0x21-0x7E
      inclusive (note that percent-encoding is allowed; see Section 2.1
      of [URI]).

   *  The URI Template MUST NOT use Reserved Expansion ("+" operator),
      Fragment Expansion ("#" operator), Label Expansion with Dot-
      Prefix, Path Segment Expansion with Slash-Prefix, nor Path-Style
      Parameter Expansion with Semicolon-Prefix.

   Clients SHOULD validate the requirements above; however, clients MAY
   use a general-purpose URI Template implementation that lacks this
   specific validation.  If a client detects that any of the
   requirements above are not met by a URI Template, the client MUST
   reject its configuration and abort the request without sending it to
   the IP proxy.

   As with UDP proxying, some client configurations for IP proxies will
   only allow the user to configure the proxy host and proxy port.
   Clients with such limitations MAY attempt to access IP proxying
   capabilities using the default template, which is defined as:
   "https://$PROXY_HOST:$PROXY_PORT/.well-known/masque/
   ip/{target}/{ipproto}/", where $PROXY_HOST and $PROXY_PORT are the
   configured host and port of the IP proxy, respectively.  IP proxy
   deployments SHOULD offer service at this location if they need to
   interoperate with such clients.






Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


4.  Tunnelling IP over HTTP

   To allow negotiation of a tunnel for IP over HTTP, this document
   defines the "connect-ip" HTTP upgrade token.  The resulting IP
   tunnels use the Capsule Protocol (see Section 3.2 of [HTTP-DGRAM])
   with HTTP Datagrams in the format defined in Section 6.

   To initiate an IP tunnel associated with a single HTTP stream, a
   client issues a request containing the "connect-ip" upgrade token.

   When sending its IP proxying request, the client SHALL perform URI
   Template expansion to determine the path and query of its request,
   see Section 3.

   By virtue of the definition of the Capsule Protocol (see Section 3.2
   of [HTTP-DGRAM]), IP proxying requests do not carry any message
   content.  Similarly, successful IP proxying responses also do not
   carry any message content.

   IP proxying over HTTP MUST be operated over TLS or QUIC encryption,
   or another equivalent encryption protocol, to provide
   confidentiality, integrity, and authentication.

4.1.  IP Proxy Handling

   Upon receiving an IP proxying request:

   *  if the recipient is configured to use another HTTP proxy, it will
      act as an intermediary by forwarding the request to another HTTP
      server.  Note that such intermediaries may need to re-encode the
      request if they forward it using a version of HTTP that is
      different from the one used to receive it, as the request encoding
      differs by version (see below).

   *  otherwise, the recipient will act as an IP proxy.  The IP proxy
      can choose to reject the IP proxying request.  Otherwise, it
      extracts the optional "target" and "ipproto" variables from the
      URI it has reconstructed from the request headers, decodes their
      percent-encoding, and establishes an IP tunnel.

   IP proxies MUST validate whether the decoded "target" and "ipproto"
   variables meet the requirements in Section 4.6.  If they do not, the
   IP proxy MUST treat the request as malformed; see Section 8.1.1 of
   [HTTP/2] and Section 4.1.2 of [HTTP/3].  If the "target" variable is
   a DNS name, the IP proxy MUST perform DNS resolution (to obtain the
   corresponding IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses via A and/or AAAA records)
   before replying to the HTTP request.  If errors occur during this
   process, the IP proxy MUST reject the request and SHOULD send details



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   using an appropriate Proxy-Status header field [PROXY-STATUS].  For
   example, if DNS resolution returns an error, the proxy can use the
   dns_error Proxy Error Type from Section 2.3.2 of [PROXY-STATUS].

   The lifetime of the IP forwarding tunnel is tied to the IP proxying
   request stream.  The IP proxy MUST maintain all IP address and route
   assignments associated with the IP forwarding tunnel while the
   request stream is open.  IP proxies MAY choose to tear down the
   tunnel due to a period of inactivity, but they MUST close the request
   stream when doing so.

   A successful response (as defined in Sections 4.3 and 4.5) indicates
   that the IP proxy has established an IP tunnel and is willing to
   proxy IP payloads.  Any response other than a successful response
   indicates that the request has failed; thus, the client MUST abort
   the request.

   Along with a successful response, the IP proxy can send capsules to
   assign addresses and advertise routes to the client (Section 4.7).
   The client can also assign addresses and advertise routes to the IP
   proxy for network-to-network routing.

4.2.  HTTP/1.1 Request

   When using HTTP/1.1 [HTTP/1.1], an IP proxying request will meet the
   following requirements:

   *  the method SHALL be "GET".

   *  the request SHALL include a single Host header field containing
      the host and optional port of the IP proxy.

   *  the request SHALL include a Connection header field with value
      "Upgrade" (note that this requirement is case-insensitive as per
      Section 7.6.1 of [HTTP]).

   *  the request SHALL include an Upgrade header field with value
      "connect-ip".

   An IP proxying request that does not conform to these restrictions is
   malformed.  The recipient of such a malformed request MUST respond
   with an error and SHOULD use the 400 (Bad Request) status code.

   For example, if the client is configured with URI Template
   "https://example.org/.well-known/masque/ip/{target}/{ipproto}/" and
   wishes to open an IP forwarding tunnel with no target or protocol
   limitations, it could send the following request:




Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   GET https://example.org/.well-known/masque/ip/*/*/ HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.org
   Connection: Upgrade
   Upgrade: connect-ip
   Capsule-Protocol: ?1

                     Figure 2: Example HTTP/1.1 Request

4.3.  HTTP/1.1 Response

   The server indicates a successful response by replying with the
   following requirements:

   *  the HTTP status code on the response SHALL be 101 (Switching
      Protocols).

   *  the response SHALL include a Connection header field with value
      "Upgrade" (note that this requirement is case-insensitive as per
      Section 7.6.1 of [HTTP]).

   *  the response SHALL include a single Upgrade header field with
      value "connect-ip".

   *  the response SHALL meet the requirements of HTTP responses that
      start the Capsule Protocol; see Section 3.2 of [HTTP-DGRAM].

   If any of these requirements are not met, the client MUST treat this
   proxying attempt as failed and close the connection.

   For example, the server could respond with:

   HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
   Connection: Upgrade
   Upgrade: connect-ip
   Capsule-Protocol: ?1

                    Figure 3: Example HTTP/1.1 Response

4.4.  HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Requests

   When using HTTP/2 [HTTP/2] or HTTP/3 [HTTP/3], IP proxying requests
   use HTTP Extended CONNECT.  This requires that servers send an HTTP
   Setting as specified in [EXT-CONNECT2] and [EXT-CONNECT3] and that
   requests use HTTP pseudo-header fields with the following
   requirements:

   *  The :method pseudo-header field SHALL be "CONNECT".




Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   *  The :protocol pseudo-header field SHALL be "connect-ip".

   *  The :authority pseudo-header field SHALL contain the authority of
      the IP proxy.

   *  The :path and :scheme pseudo-header fields SHALL NOT be empty.
      Their values SHALL contain the scheme and path from the URI
      Template after the URI Template expansion process has been
      completed; see Section 3.  Variables in the URI Template can
      determine the scope of the request, such as requesting full-tunnel
      IP packet forwarding, or a specific proxied flow; see Section 4.6.

   An IP proxying request that does not conform to these restrictions is
   malformed; see Section 8.1.1 of [HTTP/2] and Section 4.1.2 of
   [HTTP/3].

   For example, if the client is configured with URI Template
   "https://example.org/.well-known/masque/ip/{target}/{ipproto}/" and
   wishes to open an IP forwarding tunnel with no target or protocol
   limitations, it could send the following request:

   HEADERS
   :method = CONNECT
   :protocol = connect-ip
   :scheme = https
   :path = /.well-known/masque/ip/*/*/
   :authority = example.org
   capsule-protocol = ?1

                 Figure 4: Example HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 Request

4.5.  HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Responses

   The server indicates a successful response by replying with the
   following requirements:

   *  the HTTP status code on the response SHALL be in the 2xx
      (Successful) range.

   *  the response SHALL meet the requirements of HTTP responses that
      start the Capsule Protocol; see Section 3.2 of [HTTP-DGRAM].

   If any of these requirements are not met, the client MUST treat this
   proxying attempt as failed and abort the request.  As an example, any
   status code in the 3xx range will be treated as a failure and cause
   the client to abort the request.

   For example, the server could respond with:



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   HEADERS
   :status = 200
   capsule-protocol = ?1

                Figure 5: Example HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 Response

4.6.  Limiting Request Scope

   Unlike UDP proxying requests, which require specifying a target host,
   IP proxying requests can allow endpoints to send arbitrary IP packets
   to any host.  The client can choose to restrict a given request to a
   specific IP prefix or IP protocol by adding parameters to its
   request.  When the IP proxy knows that a request is scoped to a
   target prefix or protocol, it can leverage this information to
   optimize its resource allocation; for example, the IP proxy can
   assign the same public IP address to two IP proxying requests that
   are scoped to different prefixes and/or different protocols.

   The scope of the request is indicated by the client to the IP proxy
   via the "target" and "ipproto" variables of the URI Template; see
   Section 3.  Both the "target" and "ipproto" variables are optional;
   if they are not included, they are considered to carry the wildcard
   value "*".

   target:  The variable "target" contains a hostname or IP prefix of a
      specific host to which the client wants to proxy packets.  If the
      "target" variable is not specified or its value is "*", the client
      is requesting to communicate with any allowable host. "target"
      supports using DNS names, IPv6 prefixes and IPv4 prefixes.  Note
      that IPv6 scoped addressing zone identifiers ([RFC6874]) are not
      supported.  If the target is an IP prefix (IP address optionally
      followed by a percent-encoded slash followed by the prefix length
      in bits), the request will only support a single IP version.  If
      the target is a hostname, the IP proxy is expected to perform DNS
      resolution to determine which route(s) to advertise to the client.
      The IP proxy SHOULD send a ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule that
      includes routes for all addresses that were resolved for the
      requested hostname, that are accessible to the IP proxy, and
      belong to an address family for which the IP proxy also sends an
      Assigned Address.
   ipproto:  The variable "ipproto" contains an IP protocol number, as










Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


      defined in the "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers" IANA registry
      [IANA-PN].  If present, it specifies that a client only wants to
      proxy a specific IP protocol for this request.  If the value is
      "*", or the variable is not included, the client is requesting to
      use any IP protocol.  The IP protocol indicated in the "ipproto"
      variable represents an allowable next header value carried in IP
      headers that are directly sent in HTTP datagrams (the outermost IP
      headers).  ICMP traffic is always allowed, regardless of the value
      of this field.

   Using the terms IPv6address, IPv4address, and reg-name from [URI],
   the "target" and "ipproto" variables MUST adhere to the format in
   Figure 6, using notation from [ABNF].  Additionally:

   *  if "target" contains an IPv6 literal or prefix, the colons (":")
      MUST be percent-encoded.  For example, if the target host is
      "2001:db8::42", it will be encoded in the URI as
      "2001%3Adb8%3A%3A42".

   *  If present, the IP prefix length in "target" SHALL be preceded by
      a percent-encoded slash ("/"): "%2F".  The IP prefix length MUST
      represent a decimal integer between 0 and the length of the IP
      address in bits, inclusive.

   *  If "target" contains an IP prefix and the prefix length is
      strictly less than the length of the IP address in bits, the lower
      bits of the IP address that are not covered by the prefix length
      MUST all be set to 0.

   *  "ipproto" MUST represent a decimal integer between 0 and 255
      inclusive, or the wildcard value "*".

   target = IPv6prefix / IPv4prefix / reg-name / "*"
   IPv6prefix = IPv6address ["%2F" 1*3DIGIT]
   IPv4prefix = IPv4address ["%2F" 1*2DIGIT]
   ipproto = 1*3DIGIT / "*"

                   Figure 6: URI Template Variable Format

   IP proxies MAY perform access control using the scoping information
   provided by the client: if the client is not authorized to access any
   of the destinations included in the scope, then the IP proxy can
   immediately fail the request.








Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


4.7.  Capsules

   This document defines multiple new capsule types that allow endpoints
   to exchange IP configuration information.  Both endpoints MAY send
   any number of these new capsules.

4.7.1.  ADDRESS_ASSIGN Capsule

   The ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsule (see Section 12.4 for the value of the
   capsule type) allows an endpoint to inform its peer of the list of IP
   addresses or prefixes it has assigned to it.  Every capsule contains
   the full list of IP prefixes currently assigned to the receiver.  Any
   of these addresses can be used as the source address on IP packets
   originated by the receiver of this capsule.

   ADDRESS_ASSIGN Capsule {
     Type (i) = ADDRESS_ASSIGN,
     Length (i),
     Assigned Address (..) ...,
   }

                  Figure 7: ADDRESS_ASSIGN Capsule Format

   The ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsule contains a sequence of zero or more
   Assigned Addresses.

   Assigned Address {
     Request ID (i),
     IP Version (8),
     IP Address (32..128),
     IP Prefix Length (8),
   }

                     Figure 8: Assigned Address Format

   Each Assigned Address contains the following fields:

   Request ID:  Request identifier, encoded as a variable-length
      integer.  If this address assignment is in response to an Address
      Request (see Section 4.7.2), then this field SHALL contain the
      value of the corresponding field in the request.  Otherwise, this
      field SHALL be zero.
   IP Version:  IP Version of this address assignment, encoded as an
      unsigned 8-bit integer.  MUST be either 4 or 6.
   IP Address:  Assigned IP address.  If the IP Version field has value
      4, the IP Address field SHALL have a length of 32 bits.  If the IP
      Version field has value 6, the IP Address field SHALL have a
      length of 128 bits.



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   IP Prefix Length:  The number of bits in the IP address that are used
      to define the prefix that is being assigned, encoded as an
      unsigned 8-bit integer.  This MUST be less than or equal to the
      length of the IP Address field, in bits.  If the prefix length is
      equal to the length of the IP address, the receiver of this
      capsule is allowed to send packets from a single source address.
      If the prefix length is less than the length of the IP address,
      the receiver of this capsule is allowed to send packets from any
      source address that falls within the prefix.  If the prefix length
      is strictly less than the length of the IP address in bits, the
      lower bits of the IP Address field that are not covered by the
      prefix length MUST all be set to 0.

   If any of the capsule fields are malformed upon reception, the
   receiver of the capsule MUST follow the error handling procedure
   defined in Section 3.3 of [HTTP-DGRAM].

   If an ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsule does not contain an address that was
   previously transmitted in another ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsule, that
   indicates that the address has been removed.  An ADDRESS_ASSIGN
   capsule can also be empty, indicating that all addresses have been
   removed.

   In some deployments of IP proxying in HTTP, an endpoint needs to be
   assigned an address by its peer before it knows what source address
   to set on its own packets.  For example, in the Remote Access VPN
   case (Section 8.1) the client cannot send IP packets until it knows
   what address to use.  In these deployments, the endpoint that is
   expecting an address assignment MUST send an ADDRESS_REQUEST capsule.
   This isn't required if the endpoint does not need any address
   assignment, for example when it is configured out-of-band with static
   addresses.

   While ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsules are commonly sent in response to
   ADDRESS_REQUEST capsules, endpoints MAY send ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsules
   unprompted.

4.7.2.  ADDRESS_REQUEST Capsule

   The ADDRESS_REQUEST capsule (see Section 12.4 for the value of the
   capsule type) allows an endpoint to request assignment of IP
   addresses from its peer.  The capsule allows the endpoint to
   optionally indicate a preference for which address it would get
   assigned.







Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   ADDRESS_REQUEST Capsule {
     Type (i) = ADDRESS_REQUEST,
     Length (i),
     Requested Address (..) ...,
   }

                  Figure 9: ADDRESS_REQUEST Capsule Format

   The ADDRESS_REQUEST capsule contains a sequence of one or more
   Requested Addresses.

   Requested Address {
     Request ID (i),
     IP Version (8),
     IP Address (32..128),
     IP Prefix Length (8),
   }

                    Figure 10: Requested Address Format

   Each Requested Address contains the following fields:

   Request ID:  Request identifier, encoded as a variable-length
      integer.  This is the identifier of this specific address request.
      Each request from a given endpoint carries a different identifier.
      Request IDs MUST NOT be reused by an endpoint, and MUST NOT be
      zero.
   IP Version:  IP Version of this address request, encoded as an
      unsigned 8-bit integer.  MUST be either 4 or 6.
   IP Address:  Requested IP address.  If the IP Version field has value
      4, the IP Address field SHALL have a length of 32 bits.  If the IP
      Version field has value 6, the IP Address field SHALL have a
      length of 128 bits.
   IP Prefix Length:  Length of the IP Prefix requested, in bits,
      encoded as an unsigned 8-bit integer.  MUST be less than or equal
      to the length of the IP Address field, in bits.  If the prefix
      length is strictly less than the length of the IP address in bits,
      the lower bits of the IP Address field that are not covered by the
      prefix length MUST all be set to 0.

   If the IP address is all-zero (0.0.0.0 or ::), this indicates that
   the sender is requesting an address of that address family but does
   not have a preference for a specific address.  In that scenario, the
   prefix length still indicates the sender's preference for the prefix
   length it is requesting.






Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   If any of the capsule fields are malformed upon reception, the
   receiver of the capsule MUST follow the error handling procedure
   defined in Section 3.3 of [HTTP-DGRAM].

   Upon receiving the ADDRESS_REQUEST capsule, an endpoint SHOULD assign
   one or more IP addresses to its peer, and then respond with an
   ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsule to inform the peer of the assignment.  For
   each Requested Address, the receiver of the ADDRESS_REQUEST capsule
   SHALL respond with an Assigned Address with a matching Request ID.
   If the requested address was assigned, the IP Address and IP Prefix
   Length fields in the Assigned Address response SHALL be set to the
   assigned values.  If the requested address was not assigned, the IP
   address SHALL be all-zero and the IP Prefix Length SHALL be the
   maximum length (0.0.0.0/32 or ::/128) to indicate that no address was
   assigned.  These address rejections SHOULD NOT be included in
   subsequent ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsules.  Note that other Assigned Address
   entries that do not correspond to any Request ID can also be
   contained in the same ADDRESS_ASSIGN response.

   If an endpoint receives an ADDRESS_REQUEST capsule that contains zero
   Requested Addresses, it MUST abort the IP proxying request stream.

   Note that the ordering of Requested Addresses does not carry any
   semantics.  Similarly, the Request ID is only meant as a unique
   identifier, it does not convey any priority or importance.

4.7.3.  ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT Capsule

   The ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule (see Section 12.4 for the value of
   the capsule type) allows an endpoint to communicate to its peer that
   it is willing to route traffic to a set of IP address ranges.  This
   indicates that the sender has an existing route to each address
   range, and notifies its peer that if the receiver of the
   ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule sends IP packets for one of these ranges
   in HTTP Datagrams, the sender of the capsule will forward them along
   its preexisting route.  Any address which is in one of the address
   ranges can be used as the destination address on IP packets
   originated by the receiver of this capsule.

   ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT Capsule {
     Type (i) = ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT,
     Length (i),
     IP Address Range (..) ...,
   }

               Figure 11: ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT Capsule Format





Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   The ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule contains a sequence of zero or more
   IP Address Ranges.

   IP Address Range {
     IP Version (8),
     Start IP Address (32..128),
     End IP Address (32..128),
     IP Protocol (8),
   }

                     Figure 12: IP Address Range Format

   Each IP Address Range contains the following fields:

   IP Version:  IP Version of this range, encoded as an unsigned 8-bit
      integer.  MUST be either 4 or 6.
   Start IP Address and End IP Address:  Inclusive start and end IP
      address of the advertised range.  If the IP Version field has
      value 4, these fields SHALL have a length of 32 bits.  If the IP
      Version field has value 6, these fields SHALL have a length of 128
      bits.  The Start IP Address MUST be less than or equal to the End
      IP Address.
   IP Protocol:  The Internet Protocol Number for traffic that can be
      sent to this range, encoded as an unsigned 8-bit integer.  If the
      value is 0, all protocols are allowed.  If the value is not 0, it
      represents an allowable next header value carried in IP headers
      that are directly sent in HTTP datagrams (the outermost IP
      headers).  ICMP traffic is always allowed, regardless of the value
      of this field.

   If any of the capsule fields are malformed upon reception, the
   receiver of the capsule MUST follow the error handling procedure
   defined in Section 3.3 of [HTTP-DGRAM].

   Upon receiving the ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule, an endpoint MAY
   update its local state regarding what its peer is willing to route
   (subject to local policy), such as by installing entries in a routing
   table.

   Each ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT contains the full list of address ranges.
   If multiple ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsules are sent in one direction,
   each ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule supersedes prior ones.  In other
   words, if a given address range was present in a prior capsule but
   the most recently received ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule does not
   contain it, the receiver will consider that range withdrawn.






Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   If multiple ranges using the same IP protocol were to overlap, some
   routing table implementations might reject them.  To prevent overlap,
   the ranges are ordered; this places the burden on the sender and
   makes verification by the receiver much simpler.  If an IP Address
   Range A precedes an IP Address Range B in the same
   ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule, they MUST follow these requirements:

   *  IP Version of A MUST be less than or equal to IP Version of B

   *  If the IP Version of A and B are equal, the IP Protocol of A MUST
      be less than or equal to IP Protocol of B.

   *  If the IP Version and IP Protocol of A and B are both equal, the
      End IP Address of A MUST be strictly less than the Start IP
      Address of B.

   If an endpoint receives a ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule that does not
   meet these requirements, it MUST abort the IP proxying request
   stream.

   Since setting the IP protocol to zero indicates all protocols are
   allowed, the requirements above make it possible for two routes to
   overlap when one has IP protocol set to zero and the other set to
   non-zero.  Endpoints MUST NOT send a ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule with
   routes that overlap in such a way.  Validating this requirement is
   OPTIONAL, but if an endpoint detects the violation, it MUST abort the
   IP proxying request stream.

4.8.  IPv6 Extension Headers

   Both request scoping (see Section 4.6) and the ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT
   capsule (see Section 4.7.3) use IP protocol numbers.  These numbers
   represent both upper layers (as defined in Section 2 of [IPv6],
   examples include TCP and UDP) and IPv6 extension headers (as defined
   in Section 4 of [IPv6], examples include Fragment and Options
   headers).  IP proxies MAY reject requests to scope to protocol
   numbers that are used for extension headers.  Upon receiving packets,
   implementations that support scoping or routing by IP protocol number
   MUST walk the chain of extensions to find outermost non-extension IP
   protocol number to match against the scoping rule.  Note that the
   ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule uses IP protocol number 0 to indicate
   that all protocols are allowed, it does not restrict the route to the
   IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header (Section 4.3 of [IPv6]).








Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


5.  Context Identifiers

   The mechanism for proxying IP in HTTP defined in this document allows
   future extensions to exchange HTTP Datagrams that carry different
   semantics from IP payloads.  Some of these extensions can augment IP
   payloads with additional data or compress IP header fields, while
   others can exchange data that is completely separate from IP
   payloads.  In order to accomplish this, all HTTP Datagrams associated
   with IP proxying request streams start with a Context ID field; see
   Section 6.

   Context IDs are 62-bit integers (0 to 2^62-1).  Context IDs are
   encoded as variable-length integers; see Section 16 of [QUIC].  The
   Context ID value of 0 is reserved for IP payloads, while non-zero
   values are dynamically allocated.  Non-zero even-numbered Context IDs
   are client-allocated, and odd-numbered Context IDs are proxy-
   allocated.  The Context ID namespace is tied to a given HTTP request;
   it is possible for a Context ID with the same numeric value to be
   simultaneously allocated in distinct requests, potentially with
   different semantics.  Context IDs MUST NOT be re-allocated within a
   given HTTP request but MAY be allocated in any order.  The Context ID
   allocation restrictions to the use of even-numbered and odd-numbered
   Context IDs exist in order to avoid the need for synchronization
   between endpoints.  However, once a Context ID has been allocated,
   those restrictions do not apply to the use of the Context ID; it can
   be used by either the client or the IP proxy, independent of which
   endpoint initially allocated it.

   Registration is the action by which an endpoint informs its peer of
   the semantics and format of a given Context ID.  This document does
   not define how registration occurs.  Future extensions MAY use HTTP
   header fields or capsules to register Context IDs.  Depending on the
   method being used, it is possible for datagrams to be received with
   Context IDs that have not yet been registered.  For instance, this
   can be due to reordering of the packet containing the datagram and
   the packet containing the registration message during transmission.

6.  HTTP Datagram Payload Format

   When associated with IP proxying request streams, the HTTP Datagram
   Payload field of HTTP Datagrams (see [HTTP-DGRAM]) has the format
   defined in Figure 13.  Note that when HTTP Datagrams are encoded
   using QUIC DATAGRAM frames, the Context ID field defined below
   directly follows the Quarter Stream ID field which is at the start of
   the QUIC DATAGRAM frame payload:






Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   IP Proxying HTTP Datagram Payload {
     Context ID (i),
     Payload (..),
   }

                Figure 13: IP Proxying HTTP Datagram Format

   The IP Proxying HTTP Datagram Payload contains the following fields:

   Context ID:  A variable-length integer that contains the value of the
      Context ID.  If an HTTP/3 datagram which carries an unknown
      Context ID is received, the receiver SHALL either drop that
      datagram silently or buffer it temporarily (on the order of a
      round trip) while awaiting the registration of the corresponding
      Context ID.
   Payload:  The payload of the datagram, whose semantics depend on
      value of the previous field.  Note that this field can be empty.

   IP packets are encoded using HTTP Datagrams with the Context ID set
   to zero.  When the Context ID is set to zero, the Payload field
   contains a full IP packet (from the IP Version field until the last
   byte of the IP Payload).

7.  IP Packet Handling

   This document defines a tunneling mechanism that is conceptually an
   IP link.  However, because links are attached to IP routers,
   implementations might need to handle some of the responsibilities of
   IP routers if they do not delegate them to another implementation
   such as a kernel.

7.1.  Link Operation

   The IP forwarding tunnels described in this document are not fully
   featured "interfaces" in the IPv6 addressing architecture sense
   [IPv6-ADDR].  In particular, they do not necessarily have IPv6 link-
   local addresses.  Additionally, IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration or
   router advertisement messages are not used in such interfaces, and
   neither is neighbor discovery.












Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   Clients MAY optimistically start sending proxied IP packets before
   receiving the response to its IP proxying request, noting however
   that those may not be processed by the IP proxy if it responds to the
   request with a failure, or if the datagrams are received by the IP
   proxy before the request.  Since receiving addresses and routes is
   required in order to know that a packet can be sent through the
   tunnel, such optimistic packets might be dropped by the IP proxy if
   it chooses to provide different addressing or routing information
   than what the client assumed.

   Note that it is possible for multiple proxied IP packets to be
   encapsulated in the same outer packet, for example because a QUIC
   packet can carry two QUIC DATAGRAM frames.  It is also possible for a
   proxied IP packet to span multiple outer packets, because a DATAGRAM
   capsule can be split across multiple QUIC or TCP packets.

7.2.  Routing Operation

   The requirements in this section are a repetition of requirements
   that apply to IP routers in general, and might not apply to
   implementations of IP proxying that rely on external software for
   routing.

   When an endpoint receives an HTTP Datagram containing an IP packet,
   it will parse the packet's IP header, perform any local policy checks
   (e.g., source address validation), check their routing table to pick
   an outbound interface, and then send the IP packet on that interface
   or pass it to a local application.  The endpoint can also choose to
   drop any received packets instead of forwarding them.  If a received
   IP packet fails any correctness or policy checks, that is a
   forwarding error, not a protocol violation as far as IP proxying is
   concerned; see Section 7.2.1.  IP proxying endpoints MAY implement
   additional filtering policies on the IP packets they forward.

   In the other direction, when an endpoint receives an IP packet, it
   checks to see if the packet matches the routes mapped for an IP
   tunnel, and performs the same forwarding checks as above before
   transmitting the packet over HTTP Datagrams.

   When IP proxying endpoints forward IP packets between different
   links, they will decrement the IP Hop Count (or TTL) upon
   encapsulation, but not upon decapsulation.  In other words, the Hop
   Count is decremented right before an IP packet is transmitted in an
   HTTP Datagram.  This prevents infinite loops in the presence of
   routing loops, and matches the choices in IPsec [IPSEC].  This does
   not apply to IP packets generated by the IP proxying endpoint itself.





Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   Implementers need to ensure that they do not forward any link-local
   traffic beyond the IP proxying interface that it was received on.  IP
   proxying endpoints also need to properly reply to packets destined to
   link-local multicast addresses.

   IPv6 requires that every link have an MTU of at least 1280 bytes
   [IPv6].  Since IP proxying in HTTP conveys IP packets in HTTP
   Datagrams and those can in turn be sent in QUIC DATAGRAM frames which
   cannot be fragmented [DGRAM], the MTU of an IP tunnel can be limited
   by the MTU of the QUIC connection that IP proxying is operating over.
   This can lead to situations where the IPv6 minimum link MTU is
   violated.  IP proxying endpoints that operate as routers and support
   IPv6 MUST ensure that the IP tunnel link MTU is at least 1280 (i.e.,
   that they can send HTTP Datagrams with payloads of at least 1280
   bytes).  This can be accomplished using various techniques:

   *  if both IP proxying endpoints know for certain that HTTP
      intermediaries are not in use, the endpoints can pad the QUIC
      INITIAL packets of the outer QUIC connection that IP proxying is
      running over.  (Assuming QUIC version 1 is in use, the overhead is
      1 byte type, 20 bytes maximal connection ID length, 4 bytes
      maximal packet number length, 1 byte DATAGRAM frame type, 8 bytes
      maximal quarter stream ID, one byte for the zero Context ID, and
      16 bytes for the AEAD authentication tag, for a total of 51 bytes
      of overhead which corresponds to padding QUIC INITIAL packets to
      1331 bytes or more.)

   *  IP proxying endpoints can also send ICMPv6 echo requests with 1232
      bytes of data to ascertain the link MTU and tear down the tunnel
      if they do not receive a response.  Unless endpoints have an out-
      of-band means of guaranteeing that the previous techniques is
      sufficient, they MUST use this method.  If an endpoint does not
      know an IPv6 address of its peer, it can send the ICMPv6 echo
      request to the link local all nodes multicast address (ff02::1).

   If an endpoint is using QUIC DATAGRAM frames to convey IPv6 packets,
   and it detects that the QUIC MTU is too low to allow sending 1280
   bytes, it MUST abort the IP proxying request stream.

7.2.1.  Error Signalling

   Since IP proxying endpoints often forward IP packets onwards to other
   network interfaces, they need to handle errors in the forwarding
   process.  For example, forwarding can fail if the endpoint does not
   have a route for the destination address, or if it is configured to
   reject a destination prefix by policy, or if the MTU of the outgoing
   link is lower than the size of the packet to be forwarded.  In such
   scenarios, IP proxying endpoints SHOULD use ICMP [ICMP] [ICMPv6] to



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   signal the forwarding error to its peer by generating ICMP packets
   and sending them using HTTP Datagrams.

   Endpoints are free to select the most appropriate ICMP errors to
   send.  Some examples that are relevant for IP proxying include:

   *  For invalid source addresses, send Destination Unreachable
      (Section 3.1 of [ICMPv6]) with code 5, "Source address failed
      ingress/egress policy".

   *  For unroutable destination addresses, send Destination Unreachable
      (Section 3.1 of [ICMPv6]) with a code 0, "No route to
      destination", or code 1, "Communication with destination
      administratively prohibited".

   *  For packets that cannot fit within the MTU of the outgoing link,
      send Packet Too Big (Section 3.2 of [ICMPv6]).

   In order to receive these errors, endpoints need to be prepared to
   receive ICMP packets.  If an endpoint does not send
   ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsules, such as a client opening an IP flow
   through an IP proxy, it SHOULD process proxied ICMP packets from its
   peer in order to receive these errors.  Note that ICMP messages can
   originate from a source address different from that of the IP
   proxying peer, and also from outside the target if scoping is in use
   (see Section 4.6).

8.  Examples

   IP proxying in HTTP enables many different use cases that can benefit
   from IP packet proxying and tunnelling.  These examples are provided
   to help illustrate some of the ways in which IP proxying in HTTP can
   be used.

8.1.  Remote Access VPN

   The following example shows a point-to-network VPN setup, where a
   client receives a set of local addresses, and can send to any remote
   host through the IP proxy.  Such VPN setups can be either full-tunnel
   or split-tunnel.

   +--------+ IP A          IP B +--------+           +---> IP D
   |        +--------------------+   IP   | IP C      |
   | Client | IP Subnet C <--> ? |  Proxy +-----------+---> IP E
   |        +--------------------+        |           |
   +--------+                    +--------+           +---> IP ...

                        Figure 14: VPN Tunnel Setup



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   In this case, the client does not specify any scope in its request.
   The IP proxy assigns the client an IPv4 address (192.0.2.11) and a
   full-tunnel route of all IPv4 addresses (0.0.0.0/0).  The client can
   then send to any IPv4 host using its assigned address as its source
   address.

   [[ From Client ]]             [[ From IP Proxy ]]

   SETTINGS
     H3_DATAGRAM = 1

                                 SETTINGS
                                   ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL = 1
                                   H3_DATAGRAM = 1

   STREAM(44): HEADERS
   :method = CONNECT
   :protocol = connect-ip
   :scheme = https
   :path = /vpn
   :authority = proxy.example.com
   capsule-protocol = ?1

                                 STREAM(44): HEADERS
                                 :status = 200
                                 capsule-protocol = ?1

   STREAM(44): DATA
   Capsule Type = ADDRESS_REQUEST
   (Request ID = 1
    IP Version = 4
    IP Address = 0.0.0.0
    IP Prefix Length = 32)

                                 STREAM(44): DATA
                                 Capsule Type = ADDRESS_ASSIGN
                                 (Request ID = 1
                                  IP Version = 4
                                  IP Address = 192.0.2.11
                                  IP Prefix Length = 32)

                                 STREAM(44): DATA
                                 Capsule Type = ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT
                                 (IP Version = 4
                                  Start IP Address = 0.0.0.0
                                  End IP Address = 255.255.255.255
                                  IP Protocol = 0) // Any




Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   DATAGRAM
   Quarter Stream ID = 11
   Context ID = 0
   Payload = Encapsulated IP Packet

                                 DATAGRAM
                                 Quarter Stream ID = 11
                                 Context ID = 0
                                 Payload = Encapsulated IP Packet

                     Figure 15: VPN Full-Tunnel Example

   A setup for a split-tunnel VPN (the case where the client can only
   access a specific set of private subnets) is quite similar.  In this
   case, the advertised route is restricted to 192.0.2.0/24, rather than
   0.0.0.0/0.

   [[ From Client ]]             [[ From IP Proxy ]]

                                 STREAM(44): DATA
                                 Capsule Type = ADDRESS_ASSIGN
                                 (Request ID = 0
                                  IP Version = 4
                                  IP Address = 192.0.2.42
                                  IP Prefix Length = 32)

                                 STREAM(44): DATA
                                 Capsule Type = ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT
                                 (IP Version = 4
                                  Start IP Address = 192.0.2.0
                                  End IP Address = 192.0.2.41
                                  IP Protocol = 0) // Any
                                 (IP Version = 4
                                  Start IP Address = 192.0.2.43
                                  End IP Address = 192.0.2.255
                                  IP Protocol = 0) // Any

                    Figure 16: VPN Split-Tunnel Example

8.2.  Site-to-Site VPN

   The following example shows how to connect a branch office network to
   a corporate network such that all machines on those networks can
   communicate.  In this example, the IP proxying client is attached to
   the branch office network 192.0.2.0/24, and the IP proxy is attached
   to the corporate network 203.0.113.0/24.  There are legacy clients on
   the branch office network that only allow maintenance requests from
   machines on their subnet, so the IP Proxy is provisioned with an IP



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   address from that subnet.

   192.0.2.1 <--+   +--------+             +-------+   +---> 203.0.113.9
                |   |        +-------------+  IP   |   |
   192.0.2.2 <--+---+ Client | IP Proxying | Proxy +---+---> 203.0.113.8
                |   |        +-------------+       |   |
   192.0.2.3 <--+   +--------+             +-------+   +---> 203.0.113.7

                    Figure 17: Site-to-site VPN Example

   In this case, the client does not specify any scope in its request.
   The IP proxy assigns the client an IPv4 address (203.0.113.100) and a
   split-tunnel route to the corporate network (203.0.113.0/24).  The
   client assigns the IP proxy an IPv4 address (192.0.2.200) and a
   split-tunnel route to the branch office network (192.0.2.0/24).  This
   allows hosts on both networks to communicate with each other, and
   allows the IP proxy to perform maintenance on legacy hosts in the
   branch office.  Note that IP proxying endpoints will decrement the IP
   Hop Count (or TTL) when encapsulating forwarded packets, so protocols
   that require that field be set to 255 will not function.

   [[ From Client ]]             [[ From IP Proxy ]]

   SETTINGS
     H3_DATAGRAM = 1

                                 SETTINGS
                                   ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL = 1
                                   H3_DATAGRAM = 1

   STREAM(44): HEADERS
   :method = CONNECT
   :protocol = connect-ip
   :scheme = https
   :path = /corp
   :authority = proxy.example.com
   capsule-protocol = ?1

                                 STREAM(44): HEADERS
                                 :status = 200
                                 capsule-protocol = ?1

   STREAM(44): DATA
   Capsule Type = ADDRESS_ASSIGN
   (Request ID = 0
   IP Version = 4
   IP Address = 192.0.2.200
   IP Prefix Length = 32)



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   STREAM(44): DATA
   Capsule Type = ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT
   (IP Version = 4
   Start IP Address = 192.0.2.0
   End IP Address = 192.0.2.255
   IP Protocol = 0) // Any

                                 STREAM(44): DATA
                                 Capsule Type = ADDRESS_ASSIGN
                                 (Request ID = 0
                                  IP Version = 4
                                  IP Address = 203.0.113.100
                                  IP Prefix Length = 32)

                                 STREAM(44): DATA
                                 Capsule Type = ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT
                                 (IP Version = 4
                                  Start IP Address = 203.0.113.0
                                  End IP Address = 203.0.113.255
                                  IP Protocol = 0) // Any

   DATAGRAM
   Quarter Stream ID = 11
   Context ID = 0
   Payload = Encapsulated IP Packet

                                 DATAGRAM
                                 Quarter Stream ID = 11
                                 Context ID = 0
                                 Payload = Encapsulated IP Packet

                Figure 18: Site-to-site VPN Capsule Example

8.3.  IP Flow Forwarding

   The following example shows an IP flow forwarding setup, where a
   client requests to establish a forwarding tunnel to
   target.example.com using SCTP (IP protocol 132), and receives a
   single local address and remote address it can use for transmitting
   packets.  A similar approach could be used for any other IP protocol
   that isn't easily proxied with existing HTTP methods, such as ICMP,
   ESP, etc.

   +--------+ IP A         IP B +--------+
   |        +-------------------+   IP   | IP C
   | Client |    IP C <--> D    |  Proxy +---------> IP D
   |        +-------------------+        |
   +--------+                   +--------+



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


                       Figure 19: Proxied Flow Setup

   In this case, the client specfies both a target hostname and an IP
   protocol number in the scope of its request, indicating that it only
   needs to communicate with a single host.  The IP proxy is able to
   perform DNS resolution on behalf of the client and allocate a
   specific outbound socket for the client instead of allocating an
   entire IP address to the client.  In this regard, the request is
   similar to a regular CONNECT proxy request.

   The IP proxy assigns a single IPv6 address to the client
   (2001:db8:1234::a) and a route to a single IPv6 host
   (2001:db8:3456::b), scoped to SCTP.  The client can send and receive
   SCTP IP packets to the remote host.





































Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   [[ From Client ]]             [[ From IP Proxy ]]

   SETTINGS
     H3_DATAGRAM = 1

                                 SETTINGS
                                   ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL = 1
                                   H3_DATAGRAM = 1

   STREAM(44): HEADERS
   :method = CONNECT
   :protocol = connect-ip
   :scheme = https
   :path = /proxy?target=target.example.com&ipproto=132
   :authority = proxy.example.com
   capsule-protocol = ?1

                                 STREAM(44): HEADERS
                                 :status = 200
                                 capsule-protocol = ?1

                                 STREAM(44): DATA
                                 Capsule Type = ADDRESS_ASSIGN
                                 (Request ID = 0
                                  IP Version = 6
                                  IP Address = 2001:db8:1234::a
                                  IP Prefix Length = 128)

                                 STREAM(44): DATA
                                 Capsule Type = ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT
                                 (IP Version = 6
                                  Start IP Address = 2001:db8:3456::b
                                  End IP Address = 2001:db8:3456::b
                                  IP Protocol = 132)

   DATAGRAM
   Quarter Stream ID = 11
   Context ID = 0
   Payload = Encapsulated SCTP/IP Packet

                                 DATAGRAM
                                 Quarter Stream ID = 11
                                 Context ID = 0
                                 Payload = Encapsulated SCTP/IP Packet

                    Figure 20: Proxied SCTP Flow Example





Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


8.4.  Proxied Connection Racing

   The following example shows a setup where a client is proxying UDP
   packets through an IP proxy in order to control connection
   establishment racing through an IP proxy, as defined in Happy
   Eyeballs [HEv2].  This example is a variant of the proxied flow, but
   highlights how IP-level proxying can enable new capabilities even for
   TCP and UDP.

   +--------+ IP A         IP B +--------+ IP C
   |        +-------------------+        |<------------> IP E
   | Client |  IP C <--> E      |   IP   |
   |        |     D <--> F      |  Proxy |
   |        +-------------------+        |<------------> IP F
   +--------+                   +--------+ IP D

                 Figure 21: Proxied Connection Racing Setup

   As with proxied flows, the client specifies both a target hostname
   and an IP protocol number in the scope of its request.  When the IP
   proxy performs DNS resolution on behalf of the client, it can send
   the various remote address options to the client as separate routes.
   It can also ensure that the client has both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses
   assigned.

   The IP proxy assigns both an IPv4 address (192.0.2.3) and an IPv6
   address (2001:db8:1234::a) to the client, as well as an IPv4 route
   (198.51.100.2) and an IPv6 route (2001:db8:3456::b), which represent
   the resolved addresses of the target hostname, scoped to UDP.  The
   client can send and receive UDP IP packets to either one of the IP
   proxy addresses to enable Happy Eyeballs through the IP proxy.

   [[ From Client ]]             [[ From IP Proxy ]]

   SETTINGS
     H3_DATAGRAM = 1

                                 SETTINGS
                                   ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL = 1
                                   H3_DATAGRAM = 1

   STREAM(44): HEADERS
   :method = CONNECT
   :protocol = connect-ip
   :scheme = https
   :path = /proxy?target=target.example.com&ipproto=17
   :authority = proxy.example.com
   capsule-protocol = ?1



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


                                 STREAM(44): HEADERS
                                 :status = 200
                                 capsule-protocol = ?1

                                 STREAM(44): DATA
                                 Capsule Type = ADDRESS_ASSIGN
                                 (Request ID = 0
                                  IP Version = 4
                                  IP Address = 192.0.2.3
                                  IP Prefix Length = 32),
                                 (Request ID = 0
                                  IP Version = 6
                                  IP Address = 2001:db8::1234:1234
                                  IP Prefix Length = 128)

                                 STREAM(44): DATA
                                 Capsule Type = ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT
                                 (IP Version = 4
                                  Start IP Address = 198.51.100.2
                                  End IP Address = 198.51.100.2
                                  IP Protocol = 17),
                                 (IP Version = 6
                                  Start IP Address = 2001:db8:3456::b
                                  End IP Address = 2001:db8:3456::b
                                  IP Protocol = 17)
   ...

   DATAGRAM
   Quarter Stream ID = 11
   Context ID = 0
   Payload = Encapsulated IPv6 Packet

   DATAGRAM
   Quarter Stream ID = 11
   Context ID = 0
   Payload = Encapsulated IPv4 Packet

                Figure 22: Proxied Connection Racing Example

9.  Extensibility Considerations

   Extensions to IP proxying in HTTP can define behavior changes to this
   mechanism.  Such extensions SHOULD define new capsule types to
   exchange configuration information if needed.  It is RECOMMENDED for
   extensions that modify addressing to specify that their extension
   capsules be sent before the ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsule and that they do
   not take effect until the ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsule is parsed.  This
   allows modifications to address assignment to operate atomically.



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   Similarly, extensions that modify routing SHOULD behave similarly
   with regard to the ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT capsule.

10.  Performance Considerations

   Bursty traffic can often lead to temporally-correlated packet losses;
   in turn, this can lead to suboptimal responses from congestion
   controllers in protocols running inside the tunnel.  To avoid this,
   IP proxying endpoints SHOULD strive to avoid increasing burstiness of
   IP traffic; they SHOULD NOT queue packets in order to increase
   batching beyond the minimal amount required to take advantage of
   hardware offloads.

   When the protocol running inside the tunnel uses congestion control
   (e.g., [TCP] or [QUIC]), the proxied traffic will incur at least two
   nested congestion controllers.  When tunneled packets are sent using
   QUIC DATAGRAM frames, the outer HTTP connection MAY disable
   congestion control for those packets that contain only QUIC DATAGRAM
   frames encapsulating IP packets.  Implementers will benefit from
   reading the guidance in Section 3.1.11 of [UDP-USAGE].

   When the protocol running inside the tunnel uses loss recovery (e.g.,
   [TCP] or [QUIC]), and the outer HTTP connection runs over TCP, the
   proxied traffic will incur at least two nested loss recovery
   mechanisms.  This can reduce performance as both can sometimes
   independently retransmit the same data.  To avoid this, IP proxying
   SHOULD be performed over HTTP/3 to allow leveraging the QUIC DATAGRAM
   frame.

10.1.  MTU Considerations

   When using HTTP/3 with the QUIC Datagram extension [DGRAM], IP
   packets are transmitted in QUIC DATAGRAM frames.  Since these frames
   cannot be fragmented, they can only carry packets up to a given
   length determined by the QUIC connection configuration and the Path
   MTU (PMTU).  If an endpoint is using QUIC DATAGRAM frames and it
   attempts to route an IP packet through the tunnel that will not fit
   inside a QUIC DATAGRAM frame, the IP proxy SHOULD NOT send the IP
   packet in a DATAGRAM capsule, as that defeats the end-to-end
   unreliability characteristic that methods such as Datagram
   Packetization Layer PMTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD) depend on [DPLPMTUD].
   In this scenario, the endpoint SHOULD drop the IP packet and send an
   ICMP Packet Too Big message to the sender of the dropped packet; see
   Section 3.2 of [ICMPv6].







Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


10.2.  ECN Considerations

   If an IP proxying endpoint with a connection containing an IP
   Proxying request stream disables congestion control, it cannot signal
   Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [ECN] support on that outer
   connection.  That is, the QUIC sender MUST mark all IP headers with
   the Not-ECT codepoint for QUIC packets which are outside of
   congestion control.  The endpoint can still report ECN feedback via
   QUIC ACK_ECN frames or the TCP ECE bit, as the peer might not have
   disabled congestion control.

   Conversely, if congestion control is not disabled on the outer
   congestion, the guidance in [ECN-TUNNEL] about transferring ECN marks
   between inner and outer IP headers does not apply because the outer
   connection will react correctly to congestion notifications if it
   uses ECN.  The inner traffic can also use ECN, independently of
   whether it is in use on the outer connection.

10.3.  Differentiated Services Considerations

   Tunneled IP packets can have Differentiated Services Code Points
   (DSCP) [DSCP] set in the traffic class IP header field to request a
   particular per-hop behavior.  If an IP proxying endpoint is
   configured as part of a Differentiated Services domain, it MAY
   implement traffic differentiation based on these markings.  However,
   the use of HTTP can limit the possibilities for differentiated
   treatment of the tunneled IP packets on the path between the IP
   proxying endpoints.

   When an HTTP connection is congestion-controlled, marking packets
   with different DSCP can lead to reordering between them, and that can
   in turn lead the underlying transport connection's congestion
   controller to perform poorly.  If tunneled packets are subject to
   congestion control by the outer connection, they need to avoid
   carrying DSCP markings that are not equivalent in forwarding behavior
   to prevent this situation.  In this scenario, the IP proxying
   endpoint MUST NOT copy the DSCP field from the inner IP header to the
   outer IP header of the packet carrying this packet.  Instead, an
   application would need to use separate connections to the proxy, one
   for each DSCP.  Note that this document does not define a way for
   requests to scope to particular DSCP values; such support is left to
   future extensions.

   If tunneled packets use QUIC datagrams and are not subject to
   congestion control by the outer connection, the IP proxying endpoints
   MAY translate the DSCP field value from the tunneled traffic to the
   outer IP header.  IP proxying endpoints MUST NOT coalesce multiple
   inner packets into the same outer packet unless they have the same



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   DSCP marking or an equivalent traffic class.  Note that the ability
   to translate DSCP values is dependent on the tunnel ingress and
   egress belonging to the same differentiated service domain or not.

11.  Security Considerations

   There are significant risks in allowing arbitrary clients to
   establish a tunnel that permits sending to arbitrary hosts,
   regardless of whether tunnels are scoped to specific hosts or not.
   Bad actors could abuse this capability to send traffic and have it
   attributed to the IP proxy.  HTTP servers that support IP proxying
   SHOULD restrict its use to authenticated users.  Depending on the
   deployment, possible authentication mechanisms include mutual TLS
   between IP proxying endpoints, HTTP-based authentication via the HTTP
   Authorization header [HTTP], or even bearer tokens.  Proxies can
   enforce policies for authenticated users to further constrain client
   behavior or deal with possible abuse.  For example, proxies can rate
   limit individual clients that send an excessively large amount of
   traffic through the proxy.  As another example, proxies can restrict
   address (prefix) assignment to clients based on certain client
   attributes such as geographic location.

   Address assignment can have privacy implications for endpoints.  For
   example, if a proxy partitions its address space by the number of
   authenticated clients and then assigns distinct address ranges to
   each client, target hosts could use this information to determine
   when IP packets correspond to the same client.  Avoiding such
   tracking vectors may be important for certain proxy deployments.
   Proxies SHOULD avoid persistent per-client address (prefix)
   assignment when possible.

   Falsifying IP source addresses in sent traffic has been common for
   denial of service attacks.  Implementations of this mechanism need to
   ensure that they do not facilitate such attacks.  In particular,
   there are scenarios where an endpoint knows that its peer is only
   allowed to send IP packets from a given prefix.  For example, that
   can happen through out-of-band configuration information, or when
   allowed prefixes are shared via ADDRESS_ASSIGN capsules.  In such
   scenarios, endpoints MUST follow the recommendations from [BCP38] to
   prevent source address spoofing.

   Limiting request scope (see Section 4.6) allows two clients to share
   one of the proxy's external IP addresses if their requests are scoped
   to different IP protocol numbers.  If the proxy receives an ICMP
   packet destined for that external IP address, it has the option to
   forward it back to the clients.  However, some of these ICMP packets
   carry part of the original IP packet that triggered the ICMP
   response.  Forwarding such packets can accidentally divulge



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   information about one client's traffic to another client.  To avoid
   this, proxies that forward ICMP on shared external IP addresses MUST
   inspect the invoking packet included in the ICMP packet and only
   forward the ICMP packet to the client whose scoping matches the
   invoking packet.

   Implementers will benefit from reading the guidance in
   [TUNNEL-SECURITY].  Since there are known risks with some IPv6
   extension headers (e.g., [ROUTING-HDR]), implementers need to follow
   the latest guidance regarding handling of IPv6 extension headers.

   Transferring DSCP markings from inner to outer packets (see
   Section 10.3) exposes end-to-end flow level information to an on-path
   observer between the IP proxying endpoints.  This can potentially
   expose a single end-to-end flow.  Because of this, such use of DSCP
   in privacy-sensitive contexts is NOT RECOMMENDED.

12.  IANA Considerations

12.1.  HTTP Upgrade Token

   This document will request IANA to register "connect-ip" in the HTTP
   Upgrade Token Registry maintained at
   <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-upgrade-tokens>.

   Value:  connect-ip
   Description:  Proxying of IP Payloads
   Expected Version Tokens:  None
   References:  This document

12.2.  Creation of the MASQUE URI Suffixes Registry

   This document requests that IANA create a new "MASQUE URI Suffixes"
   registry maintained at IANA_URL_TBD.  This new registry governs the
   path segment that immediately follows "masque" in paths that start
   with "/.well-known/masque/", see <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
   well-known-uris> for the registration of "masque" in the "Well-Known
   URIs" registry.  This new registry contains three columns:

   Path Segment:  An ASCII string containing only characters allowed in
      tokens; see Section 5.6.2 of [HTTP].  Entries in this registry
      MUST all have distinct entries in this column.

   Description:  A description of the entry.

   Reference:  An optional reference defining the use of the entry.





Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   The registration policy for this registry is Expert Review; see
   Section 4.5 of [IANA-POLICY].

   There are initially two entries in this registry:

              +==============+==============+===============+
              | Path Segment | Description  | Reference     |
              +==============+==============+===============+
              | udp          | UDP Proxying | RFC 9298      |
              +--------------+--------------+---------------+
              | ip           | IP Proxying  | This Document |
              +--------------+--------------+---------------+

                      Table 1: New MASQUE URI Suffixes

   Designated experts for this registry are advised that they should
   approve all requests as long as the expert believes that both (1) the
   requested Path Segment will not conflict with existing or expected
   future IETF work and (2) the use case is relevant to proxying.

12.3.  Updates to masque Well-Known URI

   This document will request IANA to update the entry for the "masque"
   URI suffix in the "Well-Known URIs" registry maintained at
   <https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris>.

   IANA is requested to update the "Reference" field to include this
   document in addition to previous values from that field.

   IANA is requested to replace the "Related Information" field with
   "For sub-suffix allocations, see registry at IANA_URL_TBD." where
   IANA_URL_TBD is the URL of the new registry described in
   Section 12.2.

12.4.  Capsule Type Registrations

   This document requests IANA to add the following values to the "HTTP
   Capsule Types" registry maintained at
   <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-capsule-protocol>.












Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


           +=======+=====================+=====================+
           | Value | Capsule Type        | Description         |
           +=======+=====================+=====================+
           | 0x01  | ADDRESS_ASSIGN      | Address Assignment  |
           +-------+---------------------+---------------------+
           | 0x02  | ADDRESS_REQUEST     | Address Request     |
           +-------+---------------------+---------------------+
           | 0x03  | ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT | Route Advertisement |
           +-------+---------------------+---------------------+

                           Table 2: New Capsules

   All of these new entries use the following values for these fields:

   Status:  provisional (permanent when this document is approved)

   Reference:  This Document

   Change Controller:  IETF

   Contact:  masque@ietf.org

   Notes:  Empty

   RFC Editor: please remove the rest of this subsection before
   publication.

   Since this document has not yet been published, it might still change
   before publication as RFC.  Any implementer that wishes to deploy IP
   proxying in production before publication MUST use the following
   temporary codepoints instead: 0x2575D601 for ADDRESS_ASSIGN,
   0x2575D602 for ADDRESS_REQUEST, and 0x2575D603 for
   ROUTE_ADVERTISEMENT.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [ABNF]     Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5234>.

   [BCP38]    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/rfc/rfc2827>.




Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   [DGRAM]    Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable
              Datagram Extension to QUIC", RFC 9221,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9221, March 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9221>.

   [DSCP]     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/rfc/rfc2474>.

   [ECN]      Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3168>.

   [EXT-CONNECT2]
              McManus, P., "Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/2",
              RFC 8441, DOI 10.17487/RFC8441, September 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8441>.

   [EXT-CONNECT3]
              Hamilton, R., "Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/3",
              RFC 9220, DOI 10.17487/RFC9220, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9220>.

   [HTTP]     Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.

   [HTTP-DGRAM]
              Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "HTTP Datagrams and the
              Capsule Protocol", RFC 9297, DOI 10.17487/RFC9297, August
              2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9297>.

   [HTTP/1.1] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "HTTP/1.1", STD 99, RFC 9112, DOI 10.17487/RFC9112,
              June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112>.

   [HTTP/2]   Thomson, M., Ed. and C. Benfield, Ed., "HTTP/2", RFC 9113,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9113, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9113>.

   [HTTP/3]   Bishop, M., Ed., "HTTP/3", RFC 9114, DOI 10.17487/RFC9114,
              June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9114>.





Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   [IANA-POLICY]
              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/rfc/rfc8126>.

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

   [ICMPv6]   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/rfc/rfc4443>.

   [IPv6]     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/rfc/rfc8200>.

   [PROXY-STATUS]
              Nottingham, M. and P. Sikora, "The Proxy-Status HTTP
              Response Header Field", RFC 9209, DOI 10.17487/RFC9209,
              June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9209>.

   [QUIC]     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/rfc/rfc9000>.

   [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/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6874]  Carpenter, B., Cheshire, S., and R. Hinden, "Representing
              IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform
              Resource Identifiers", RFC 6874, DOI 10.17487/RFC6874,
              February 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6874>.

   [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/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [TCP]      Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)",
              STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10.17487/RFC9293, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9293>.



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   [TEMPLATE] Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
              and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6570>.

   [URI]      Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [CONNECT-UDP]
              Schinazi, D., "Proxying UDP in HTTP", RFC 9298,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9298, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9298>.

   [DPLPMTUD] Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T.
              Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
              Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
              September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8899>.

   [ECN-TUNNEL]
              Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
              Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
              2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6040>.

   [HEv2]     Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
              Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8305>.

   [IANA-PN]  IANA, "Protocol Numbers",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers>.

   [IPSEC]    Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
              December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4301>.

   [IPv6-ADDR]
              Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291>.

   [PROXY-REQS]
              Chernyakhovsky, A., McCall, D., and D. Schinazi,
              "Requirements for a MASQUE Protocol to Proxy IP Traffic",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-masque-ip-



Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


              proxy-reqs-03, 27 August 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-masque-
              ip-proxy-reqs-03>.

   [ROUTING-HDR]
              Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
              of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5095>.

   [TUNNEL-SECURITY]
              Krishnan, S., Thaler, D., and J. Hoagland, "Security
              Concerns with IP Tunneling", RFC 6169,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6169, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6169>.

   [UDP-USAGE]
              Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
              Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
              March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8085>.

Acknowledgments

   The design of this method was inspired by discussions in the MASQUE
   working group around [PROXY-REQS].  The authors would like to thank
   participants in those discussions for their feedback.  Additionally,
   Mike Bishop, Lucas Pardue, and Alejandro Sedeño provided valuable
   feedback on the document.

   Most of the text on client configuration is based on the
   corresponding text in [CONNECT-UDP].

Authors' Addresses

   Tommy Pauly (editor)
   Apple Inc.
   Email: tpauly@apple.com


   David Schinazi
   Google LLC
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA 94043
   United States of America
   Email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com






Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft             Proxying IP in HTTP                April 2023


   Alex Chernyakhovsky
   Google LLC
   Email: achernya@google.com


   Mirja Kuehlewind
   Ericsson
   Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com


   Magnus Westerlund
   Ericsson
   Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com






































Pauly, et al.            Expires 30 October 2023               [Page 41]