Internet DRAFT - draft-kozuka-quic-failover
draft-kozuka-quic-failover
QUIC M. Kozuka
Internet-Draft Okayama University
Intended status: Informational 31 March 2023
Expires: 2 October 2023
Multipath QUIC Path Failover Mechanism
draft-kozuka-quic-failover-00
Abstract
The proposed path failover mechanism provides a seamless way to
recover from path failures in Multipath QUIC. It allows the protocol
to take advantage of multiple paths while maintaining reliability and
security. The implementation and deployment of this mechanism should
be done with careful consideration of security and performance.
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://masa-
koz.github.io/quic-failover/draft-kozuka-quic-failover.html. Status
information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kozuka-quic-failover/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the QUIC Working Group
mailing list (mailto:quic@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/masa-koz/quic-failover.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Kozuka Expires 2 October 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QUIC failover March 2023
This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Path Failover Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
Multipath QUIC provides improved network performance and reliability
by using multiple network paths concurrently. However, if one of the
paths fails, it can cause a disruption in the communication. This
document proposes a path failover mechanism for Multipath QUIC, which
allows it to recover from path failures seamlessly.
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.
Kozuka Expires 2 October 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft QUIC failover March 2023
3. Path Failover Mechanism
Multipath QUIC uses multiple paths to transfer data concurrently.
Each path has its own metrics, such as RTT, available bandwidth, and
congestion level. These metrics are monitored by the sender using
the Path Quality Estimation (PQE) framework. When a path failure is
detected, the sender chooses a new path to transfer data. The sender
detects a path failure when the path metrics show a significant
degradation. This can be caused by a network outage or congestion.
If the path metrics remain degraded for a certain duration, the
sender assumes the path has failed and triggers the failover
mechanism. When the failover mechanism is triggered, the sender
selects a new path to transfer data from a list of available paths.
The selection criteria can be based on various factors, such as
available bandwidth, RTT, and congestion level. The sender also
considers the path diversity to choose a path that is different from
the failed path. After selecting a new path, the sender checks
whether it is valid by sending a connectivity check packet. If the
path is valid, it starts sending data on the new path. If the new
path also fails, the sender repeats the failover mechanism with a
different path.
4. Security Considerations
The failover mechanism should not compromise the security of the
communication. The selection of a new path should not leak
information about the failed path or the communication itself.
Therefore, the selection criteria should not depend on any
information that can be obtained by an eavesdropper. The
connectivity check packet should be authenticated to prevent spoofing
attacks. The sender should verify the authenticity of the packet
before deciding to use the new path. The sender should also limit
the number of failover attempts to prevent denial-of-service attacks.
The failover mechanism should not introduce any new vulnerabilities
to the Multipath QUIC protocol. Therefore, it should be thoroughly
tested and reviewed before being deployed.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
Kozuka Expires 2 October 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft QUIC failover March 2023
[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>.
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Author's Address
Masahiro Kozuka
Okayama University
Email: masa.koz@kozuka.jp
Kozuka Expires 2 October 2023 [Page 4]
