Internet DRAFT - draft-schinazi-connect-udp-listen
draft-schinazi-connect-udp-listen
MASQUE D. Schinazi
Internet-Draft A. Singh
Intended status: Standards Track Google LLC
Expires: 10 March 2024 7 September 2023
Proxying Listener UDP in HTTP
draft-schinazi-connect-udp-listen-03
Abstract
The mechanism to proxy UDP in HTTP only allows each UDP Proxying
request to transmit to a specific host and port. This is well suited
for UDP client-server protocols such as HTTP/3, but is not sufficient
for some UDP peer-to-peer protocols like WebRTC. This document
proposes an extension to UDP Proxying in HTTP that enables such use-
cases.
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://DavidSchinazi.github.io/draft-schinazi-connect-udp-listen/
draft-schinazi-connect-udp-listen.html. Status information for this
document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
schinazi-connect-udp-listen/.
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/DavidSchinazi/draft-schinazi-connect-udp-listen.
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/.
Schinazi & Singh Expires 10 March 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CONNECT-UDP Listen September 2023
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 10 March 2024.
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
1.1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Proxied UDP Listener Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. HTTP Datagram Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. The connect-udp-listen Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Proxy behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix B. Comparison with CONNECT-IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
The mechanism to proxy UDP in HTTP [CONNECT-UDP] allows creating
tunnels for communicating UDP payloads [UDP] to a fixed host and
port. Combined with the HTTP CONNECT method (see Section 9.3.6 of
[HTTP]), it allows proxying the majority of a Web Browser's HTTP
traffic. However WebRTC [WebRTC] relies on ICE [ICE] to provide
connectivity between two Web browsers, and ICE relies on the ability
to send and receive UDP packets to multiple hosts. While in theory
Schinazi & Singh Expires 10 March 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CONNECT-UDP Listen September 2023
it might be possible to accomplish this using multiple UDP Proxying
HTTP requests, HTTP semantics [HTTP] do not guarantee that distinct
requests will be handled by the same server. This can lead to the
UDP packets being sent from distinct IP addresses, thereby preventing
ICE from operating correctly. Consequently, UDP Proxying requests
cannot enable WebRTC connectivity between peers.
This document describes an extension to UDP Proxying in HTTP that
allows sending and receiving UDP payloads to multiple hosts within
the scope of a single UDP Proxying HTTP request.
1.1. 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.
This document uses terminology from [CONNECT-UDP] and notational
conventions from [QUIC]. This document uses the terms Integer and
List from Section 3 of [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] to specify syntax and
parsing.
2. Proxied UDP Listener Mechanism
In unextended UDP Proxying requests, the target host is encoded in
the HTTP request path or query. For Listener UDP Proxying, it is
instead conveyed in each HTTP Datagram, see Section 3.
When performing URI Template Expansion of the UDP Proxying template
(see Section 3 of [CONNECT-UDP]), the client sets both the
target_host and the target_port variables to the '*' character (ASCII
character 0x2A).
Before sending its UDP Proxying request to the proxy, the client
allocates an even-numbered context ID, see Section 4 of
[CONNECT-UDP]. The client then adds the "connect-udp-listen" header
field to its UDP Proxying request, with its value set as the
allocated context ID, see Section 4.
3. HTTP Datagram Payload Format
When HTTP Datagrams [HTTP-DGRAM] associated with this Listener UDP
Proxying request contain the context ID in the connect-udp-listen
header field, the format of their UDP Proxying Payload field (see
Section 5 of [CONNECT-UDP]) is defined by Figure 1:
Schinazi & Singh Expires 10 March 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CONNECT-UDP Listen September 2023
Listener UDP Proxying Payload {
IP Version (8),
IP Address (32..128),
UDP Port (16),
UDP Payload (..),
}
Figure 1: Listener UDP Proxying HTTP Datagram Format
IP Version: The IP Version of the following IP Address field. MUST
be 4 or 6.
IP Address: The IP Address of this proxied UDP packet. When sent
from client to proxy, this is the target host to which the proxy
will send this UDP payload. When sent from proxy to client, this
represents the source IP address of the UDP packet received by the
proxy. This field has a length of 32 bits when the corresponding
IP Version field value is 4, and 128 when the IP Version is 6.
UDP Port: The UDP Port of this proxied UDP packet in network byte
order. When sent from client to proxy, this is the target port to
which the proxy will send this UDP payload. When sent from proxy
to client, this represents the source UDP port of the UDP packet
received by the proxy.
UDP Payload: The unmodified UDP Payload of this proxied UDP packet
(referred to as "data octets" in [UDP]).
4. The connect-udp-listen Header Field
The "connect-udp-listen" header field’s value is an Integer. It is
set as the Context ID allocated for Listener UDP Proxying; see
Section 2. Any other value type MUST be handled as if the field were
not present by the recipients (for example, if this field is defined
multiple times, its type becomes a List and therefore is to be
ignored). This document does not define any parameters for the
connect-udp-listen header field value, but future documents might
define parameters. Receivers MUST ignore unknown parameters.
5. Proxy behavior
After accepting the Connect-UDP Listener proxying request, the proxy
uses a UDP port to transmit UDP payloads received from the client to
the target IP Address and UDP Port specified in each Listener
Datagram Payload received from the client. The proxy uses the same
port to listen for UDP packets from any authorized target and
encapsulates the packets in the Listener Datagram Payload format,
specifying the IP and port of the target and forwards it to the
Schinazi & Singh Expires 10 March 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CONNECT-UDP Listen September 2023
client.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in Section 7 of [CONNECT-UDP]
also apply here. Since TURN can be run over this mechanism,
implementors should review the security considerations in Section 21
of [TURN].
Since unextended UDP Proxying requests carry the target as part of
the request, the proxy can protect unauthorized targets by rejecting
requests before creating the tunnel, and communicate the rejection
reason in response header fields. Listener UDP Proxying requests do
not have this ability. Therefore, proxies MUST validate the target
on every datagram and MUST NOT forward individual datagrams with
unauthorized targets. Proxies can either silently discard such
datagrams or abort the corresponding request stream.
7. IANA Considerations
This document will request IANA to register the following entry in
the "HTTP Field Name" registry maintained at
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields>:
Field Name: connect-udp-listen
Template: None
Status: provisional (permanent if this document is approved)
Reference: This document
Comments: None
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[CONNECT-UDP]
Schinazi, D., "Proxying UDP in HTTP", RFC 9298,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9298, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9298>.
[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>.
Schinazi & Singh Expires 10 March 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CONNECT-UDP Listen September 2023
[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>.
[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>.
[STRUCTURED-FIELDS]
Nottingham, M. and P. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for
HTTP", RFC 8941, DOI 10.17487/RFC8941, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8941>.
[UDP] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc768>.
8.2. Informative References
[CONNECT-IP]
Pauly, T., Schinazi, D., Chernyakhovsky, A., Kühlewind,
M., and M. Westerlund, "Proxying IP in HTTP", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-13,
28 April 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-13>.
[ICE] Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", RFC 8445,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8445, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8445>.
[TURN] Reddy, T., Ed., Johnston, A., Ed., Matthews, P., and J.
Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN):
Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT
(STUN)", RFC 8656, DOI 10.17487/RFC8656, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8656>.
[WebRTC] "WebRTC", W3C Recommendation, 26 January 2021,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/>.
Schinazi & Singh Expires 10 March 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CONNECT-UDP Listen September 2023
Appendix A. Example
In the example below, the client is configured with URI Template
"https://example.org/.well-known/masque/
udp/{target_host}/{target_port}/" and wishes to use WebRTC with
another browser over a listener UDP Proxying tunnel. It contacts a
STUN server at 192.0.2.42. The STUN server, in response, sends the
proxy's IP address to the other browser at 203.0.113.33. Using this
information, the other browser sends a UDP packet to the proxy, which
is proxied over HTTP back to the client.
Schinazi & Singh Expires 10 March 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CONNECT-UDP Listen September 2023
Client Server
STREAM(44): HEADERS -------->
:method = CONNECT
:protocol = connect-udp
:scheme = https
:path = /.well-known/masque/udp/*/*/
:authority = proxy.example.org
connect-udp-listen = 2
capsule-protocol = ?1
DATAGRAM -------->
Quarter Stream ID = 11
Context ID = 2
IP Version = 4
IP Address = 192.0.2.42
UDP Port = 1234
UDP Payload = Encapsulated UDP Payload
<-------- STREAM(44): HEADERS
:status = 200
capsule-protocol = ?1
/* Wait for STUN server to respond to UDP packet. */
<-------- DATAGRAM
Quarter Stream ID = 11
Context ID = 2
IP Version = 4
IP Address = 192.0.2.42
UDP Port = 1234
UDP Payload = Encapsulated UDP Payload
/* Wait for the STUN server to send the proxy's IP and */
/* port to the other browser and for the other browser */
/* to send a UDP packet to the proxy. */
<-------- DATAGRAM
Quarter Stream ID = 11
Context ID = 2
IP Version = 4
IP Address = 203.0.113.33
UDP Port = 4321
UDP Payload = Encapsulated UDP Payload
Schinazi & Singh Expires 10 March 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CONNECT-UDP Listen September 2023
Appendix B. Comparison with CONNECT-IP
While the use-cases described in Section 1 could be supported using
IP Proxying in HTTP [CONNECT-IP], it would require that every HTTP
Datagram carries a complete IP header. This would lead to both
inefficiencies in the wire encoding and reduction in available
Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU). Furthermore, Web browsers would
need to support IPv4 and IPv6 header generation, parsing, validation
and error handling.
Acknowledgments
This proposal is the result of many conversations with MASQUE working
group participants.
Authors' Addresses
David Schinazi
Google LLC
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America
Email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com
Abhi Singh
Google LLC
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America
Email: abhisinghietf@gmail.com
Schinazi & Singh Expires 10 March 2024 [Page 9]
