Internet DRAFT - draft-kuehlewind-quic-proxy-discovery
draft-kuehlewind-quic-proxy-discovery
Network Working Group M. Kuehlewind
Internet-Draft Z. Sarker
Intended status: Informational Ericsson
Expires: July 30, 2020 January 27, 2020
Discovery Mechanism for QUIC-based, Non-transparent Proxy Services
draft-kuehlewind-quic-proxy-discovery-01
Abstract
Often an intermediate instance (such as a proxy server) is used to
connect to a web server or a communicating peer if a direct end-to-
end IP connectivity is not possible or the proxy can provide a
support service like, e.g., address anonymisation. To use a non-
transparent proxy a client explicitly connects to it and requests
forwarding to the final target server. The client either knows the
proxy address as preconfigured in the application or can dynamically
learn about available proxy services. This document describes
different discovery mechanisms for non-transparent proxies that are
either located in the local network, e.g. home or enterprise network,
in the access network, or somewhere else on the Internet usually
close to the target server or even in the same network as the target
server.
This document assumes that the non-transparent proxy server is
connected via QUIC and discusses potential discovery mechanisms for
such a QUIC-based, non-transparent proxy.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 30, 2020.
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QUIC Non-transparent Proxy Discovery January 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Using DHCP for Local Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Using IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Local Discovery . . . . . . 5
3.1. Using PVDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. DNS Service Discovery (DNS-SD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Local discovery using mDNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Discovery for Remote Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Using PCP options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Using Anycast address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
QUIC is a new transport protocol that was initially developed as a
way to optimize HTTP traffic by supporting multiplexing without head-
of-line-blocking and integrating security directly into the
transport. This tight integration of security allows the transport
and security handshakes to be combined into a single round-trip
exchange, after which both the transport connection and authenticated
encryption keys are ready.
Often an intermediate instance (such as a proxy server) is used to
connect to a web server or a communicating peer if a direct end-to-
end IP connectivity is not possible or the proxy can provide a
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft QUIC Non-transparent Proxy Discovery January 2020
support service like, e.g., address anonymization. QUIC's ability to
multiplex, encrypt data, and migrate between network paths makes it
ideal for solutions that need to tunnel or proxy traffic.
Existing proxies that are based on TCP and HTTP are often
transparent. That is, they do not require the cooperation of the
ultimate connection endpoints, and are often not visible to one or
both of the endpoints. If QUIC provides the basis for future
tunneling and proxying solutions, it is expected that this
relationship will change. At least one of the endpoints will be
aware of the proxy, explicitly connect to it, and coordinate with it.
This makes the proxy and tunneling non-transparent to at least most
often the client. This allows client hosts to make explicit
decisions about the services they request from proxies (for example,
simple forwarding or more advance performance-optimizing services),
and to do so using a secure communication channel between itself and
the proxy. [I-D.kuehlewind-quic-substrate] describes some of the use
cases for using QUIC for proxying and tunneling.
To use a non-transparent proxy service, a client explicitly connects
to it and requests forwarding to the final target server. The client
either knows the proxy address as preconfigured in the application or
can dynamically learn about available proxy servers. This document
describes different discovery mechanisms for proxies that are either
located in the local network, e.g. home or enterprise network, in the
access network, or somewhere else on the Internet usually close to
the target server or even in the same network as the target server.
For the rest of the document the work "proxy" refers to a non-
transparent proxy.
The discovery mechanisms proposed in this document cover a range of
approaches based on IETF protocols and commonly used mechanisms,
however, other mechanisms in more specialized networks are possible
as well. For 5G networks, the 3GPP specifies an extended exposure
framework that potentially can also be used for proxy discovery and
routing support.
After discovery a client can connect to the proxy and request a proxy
service, e.g. using the MASQUE protocol [I-D.schinazi-masque], to
instruct the proxy forward traffic to a target server as well as
negotiate and request proxy capabilities and parameters.
2. Using DHCP for Local Discovery
DHCP [RFC2131] can be used to announce the IP address of local proxy
server in IPv4 networks, as well DHCPv6 [RFC8415] in IPv6 networks.
New options for both protocols are specified below and as shown in
Figure 1 and Figure 2. In both cases the option can contain one or
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft QUIC Non-transparent Proxy Discovery January 2020
more IP addresses (but of course IPV4 and IOv6 address respectively)
of QUIC-based proxy servers (indicated by the Q flag). All of the
addresses in one option share the same Lifetime value. If it is
desirable to have different Lifetime values, multiple options can be
used.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Code | Len |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Reserved |Q |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Lifetime |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |
: IPv4 Addresses of QUIC-based Proxy Servers :
| |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Figure 1: IPv4 Proxy Discovery DHCP option format
Code: Proxy Discovery option code (TBD) (8 bit)
Len: length of the option (without the Code and Len fields) in units
of octets. The minimum value is 8 if one IPv4 address is
contained in the option. Every additional IPv4 address increases
the length by 4. (8-bit unsigned integer)
Q: is set to one if proxy supports QUIC on port 443 (1 bit)
Lifetime: maximum time in seconds (relative to the time the packet
is received) over which these IP4 addresses can be used for proxy
discovery. A value of all one bits (0xffff) represents infinity.
A value of zero means that the proxy addresses SHOULD no longer be
used. (16-bit unsigned integer)
IPv4 Addresses of QUIC-based Proxy Servers: one or more 64-bit IPv4
addresses of QUIC-based proxy servers. The number of addresses is
determined by the Length field. That is, the number of addresses
is equal to (Length - 4) / 4.
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft QUIC Non-transparent Proxy Discovery January 2020
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| option-code | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |Q| Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: IPv6 Addresses of QUIC-based Proxy Servers :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: IPv6 Proxy Discovery DHCP option format
option-code: Proxy Discovery option code (TBD) (16 bit)
option-len: length of the option (without the Type and Length
fields) in units of octets. The minimum value is 20 if one IPv6
address is contained in the option. Every additional IPv6 address
increases the length by 16. (16-bit unsigned integer)
Q: is set to one if proxy supports QUIC on port 443 (1 bit)
Lifetime: maximum time in seconds (relative to the time the packet
is received) over which these IPv6 addresses can be used for proxy
discovery. A value of all one bits (0xffff) represents infinity.
A value of zero means that the proxy addresses SHOULD no longer be
used. (16-bit unsigned integer)
IPv6 Addresses of QUIC-based Proxy Servers: one or more 128-bit IPv6
addresses of QUIC-based proxy servers. The number of addresses is
determined by the Length field. That is, the number of addresses
is equal to (Length - 4) / 16.
3. Using IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Local Discovery
If a proxy is located in the local network, information to discover a
proxy service can be provided in a new Router Advertisement (RA)
Option [RFC4861], the Proxy Discovery option.
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft QUIC Non-transparent Proxy Discovery January 2020
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved |Q|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: IPv6 Addresses of QUIC-based Proxy Servers :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Proxy Discovery RA option format
Type: Proxy Discovery option type (TBD) (8 bit)
Length: length of the option (including the Type and Length fields)
in units of 8 octets. The minimum value is 3 if one IPv6 address
is contained in the option. Every additional IPv6 address
increases the length by 2. (8-bit unsigned integer)
Q: is set to one if proxy supports QUIC on port 443 (1 bit)
Lifetime: maximum time in seconds (relative to the time the packet
is received) over which these IPv6 addresses can be used for proxy
discovery. A value of all one bits (0xffffffff) represents
infinity. A value of zero means that the proxy addresses SHOULD
no longer be used. (32-bit unsigned integer)
IPv6 Addresses of QUIC-based Proxy Servers: one or more 128-bit IPv6
addresses of QUIC-based proxy servers. The number of addresses is
determined by the Length field. That is, the number of addresses
is equal to (Length - 1) / 2.
3.1. Using PVDs
If the local network provides configuration with an Explicit
Provisioning Domain (PvD) [I-D.ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains],
the RA defined above can be used with the PvD Option or alternatively
proxy information can be retrieved in the additional information JSON
files associated with the PvD ID. The endhost resolves the URL
provided in the PvD ID into an IP address using the local DNS server
that is associated with the corresponding PvD (see also section 3.4.4
of [I-D.ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains]). If a QUIC-based proxy
services is provided the additional information JSON file contains
the key "QuicProxyIP". It can then optionally also contain more
information about the specific proxy services offered using the
"ProxyService" key. Or the client can connect directly to the proxy
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft QUIC Non-transparent Proxy Discovery January 2020
over QUIC on port 443 and request information about the proxy service
directly from the proxy server.
For remote network a Web PvD might be available that contains proxy
information. If provided, the PvD JSON configuration file
retrievable at the URI with the format:
https://<Domain>/.well-known/pvd
4. DNS Service Discovery (DNS-SD)
[RFC6763] describes the use of SRV records to discover the available
instances of a type of service. To get a list of names of the
available instance for a certain service a client requests records of
type "PTR" (pointer from one name to another) in the DNS namespace
[RFC1035] for a name containing the service and domain.
As specified in [RFC6763] the client can perform a PTR query for a
list of available proxy instance in the following way:
_quicproxy._udp.<domain>
here the <domain> portion is the domain name where the service is
registered. The domain name can be obtained via DHCP options or
preconfigured.
The result of this PTR lookup is a set of zero or more PTR records
giving Service Instance names. Then to contact a particular service,
the client can query for the SRV [RFC2782] and TXT records of the
selected service instance name. The SRV record contains the IP
address of the proxy service instance as well as the port number.
The port number of QUIC-based proxy is usually expected to be 443 but
may differ. The TXT can contain additional information describing
the kind of proxy services that is offered.
4.1. Local discovery using mDNS
[RFC6762] defines the use of ".local." for performing DNS like
operations on the local link. Any DNS query for a name ending
"local." will be sent to a predefined IPv4 or IPv6 link local
multicast address.
To discover QUIC-based proxy services locally, the client request the
PTR record for the name:
_quicproxy._udp.local.
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft QUIC Non-transparent Proxy Discovery January 2020
The result of this PTR lookup is a set of zero or more PTR records
giving Service Instance Names of the form:
<Instance>._quicproxy._udp.local.
Editors' Note: Or _masque._udp ? Or _proxy._quic._udp or
_quicproxy._http._udp ...? However in the later case the proxy
should probably also actually offer a webpage...
4.2. Discovery for Remote Domains
If a client wants to discover a QUIC-based proxy server for a remote
domain, this domain has to be known by the client, e.g. being
preconfigured in the application.
5. Using PCP options
Port Control Protocol (PCP), described in [RFC6887], defines
mechanism to do packet forwarding for different types of IPv4/Ipv6
Network Address Translators (NAT) or firewalls. Usual deployments of
PCP include Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN), Customer-premises Equipment
(CPE), or residential NATs. When PCP is used to control address
translation and forwarding, the PCP server can also be used to
announce the existence of a QUIC-based proxy to the client.
PCP allows options to be included in the PCP request and response
header. To announce information from the PCP server to the client,
information about who to find a the QUIC-based proxy can be included
in the response header as an option. As [RFC6887] describes, the
client will ignore any options that it does not understand. A new
PCP option carrying QUIC-based proxy information is speficied below.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| <Option Code> | Reserved | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: IP Addresses of QUIC-based Proxy Servers :
: (each 128 bits) :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Proxy Discovery PCP option format
The fields are described below -
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft QUIC Non-transparent Proxy Discovery January 2020
Option Code: 8 bits. The most significant bit indicates if this
option is mandatory (0) or optional (1) to process.
Reserved: 8 bits. MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on reception.
Option Length:
:16 bits. Indicates the length of the enclosed data, in octets.
Options with length of 0 are allowed. Options that are not a
multiple of 4 octets long are followed by one, two, or three 0 octets
to pad their effective length in the packet to be a multiple of 4
octets. The Option Length reflects the semantic length of the
option, not including any padding octets.
IP Addresses of QUIC-based Proxy Servers: one or more IPv6 addresses
and/or IPv4 addresses of QUIC-based proxy servers. As specified
in section 5 of [RFC6887] all addresses use fixed-size 128-bit
fields. When the address field holds an IPv4 address, an
IPv4-mapped IPv6 address [RFC4291] is used (::ffff:0:0/96). The
number of addresses is determined by the Length field. That is,
the number of addresses is equal to Length/16.
6. Using Anycast address
Well-known IP anycast addresses can be used to start communicating
with QUIC proxy or to discovery any or a list of unicast address of a
QUIC proxy. When the proxy receives the request for proxy
functionalities, it can either decide to repsond to the client with
the anycast address as source address or it can send back a list of
unicast address with a redirect command.
TODO: complete the description
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign two DHCP options, one for IPv4 and one
for IPv6, in the "BOOTP Vendor Extensions and DHCP Options" registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters), as specified
in [RFC2939], and the "Option Codes" registry under DHCPv6 parameters
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters), respectively, as
well a new value for the Proxy Discovery Option in the IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery Option Formats registry.
This document adds a key to the "Additional Information PvD Keys"
registry, defined by [I-D.ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains].
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft QUIC Non-transparent Proxy Discovery January 2020
JSON key | Description | Type | Example
------------- | ----------------- | ------- | ---
QuicProxyIP | IP adress for | Array of| "["2001:db8:::1",
| QUIC-based proxies | Strings | "2001:db8:::2"]"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ProxyService | IDs identifying | Array of| "["Forwarding",
| a specific service | Strings | "DNSResolution"]"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, IANA is requested to register a new service name "quicproxy"
in the "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry"
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-
names-port-numbers.xhtml).
8. Security Consideration
Discovery mechanisms that are not authenticated provide no guarantees
about the proxy configuration information provided. In some
scenarios a client may decide to use this information anyway, as
either the local environment that the discovery was performed in is
trusted, or the client has means to authenticate the identify of the
proxy when connecting using QUIC and only uses the discovery to
dynamically detect an IP address.
Further even if the proxy is not trusted, simple forwarding or other
network-based services may be used by the client if the forwarded
traffic itself is end-to-end encrypted. In this case the trust level
should not be assumed to be higher than in the connectivity case
without proxy usage. Also note that even when the proxy is assumed
to be untrusted, an attacker could still use the opportunity to
redirect traffic over a specific node in order to more easily observe
the traffic. However, in this case the client is at least aware of
the use of the proxy and therefore has means to potentially even
identify the proxy provider, e.g. based on the IP or certificate.
For further discussion of the security of each discovery mechanism,
see also the security consideration section of these specifications.
9. Contributors
10. Acknowledgments
11. References
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft QUIC Non-transparent Proxy Discovery January 2020
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains]
Pfister, P., Vyncke, E., Pauly, T., Schinazi, D., and W.
Shao, "Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data",
draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-10 (work in
progress), January 2020.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft QUIC Non-transparent Proxy Discovery January 2020
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.kuehlewind-quic-substrate]
Kuehlewind, M., Sarker, Z., Fossati, T., and L. Pardue,
"Use Cases and Requirements for QUIC as a Substrate",
draft-kuehlewind-quic-substrate-02 (work in progress),
November 2019.
[I-D.schinazi-masque]
Schinazi, D., "The MASQUE Protocol", draft-schinazi-
masque-02 (work in progress), January 2020.
[RFC2939] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition
of New DHCP Options and Message Types", BCP 43, RFC 2939,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2939, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2939>.
Authors' Addresses
Mirja Kuehlewind
Ericsson
Email: mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Ericsson
Email: zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com
Kuehlewind & Sarker Expires July 30, 2020 [Page 12]
