Internet DRAFT - draft-seemann-quic-nat-traversal
draft-seemann-quic-nat-traversal
QUIC M. Seemann
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track E. Kinnear
Expires: 5 September 2024 Apple Inc.
4 March 2024
Using QUIC to traverse NATs
draft-seemann-quic-nat-traversal-02
Abstract
QUIC is well-suited to various NAT traversal techniques. As it
operates over UDP, and because the QUIC header was designed to be
demultipexed from other protocols, STUN can be used on the same UDP
socket, enabling ICE to be used with QUIC. Furthermore, QUIC’s path
validation mechanism can be used to test the viability of an address
candidate pair while at the same time creating the NAT bindings
required for a direction connection, after which QUIC connection
migration can be used to migrate the connection to a direct path.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the QUIC Working Group
mailing list (quic@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/marten-seemann/draft-seemann-quic-nat-traversal.
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 5 September 2024.
Seemann & Kinnear Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QUIC NAT Traversal March 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. NAT Traversal Using an External Signaling Channel . . . . . . 3
4. NAT Traversal using the NAT Traversal QUIC Extension . . . . 4
4.1. Gathering Address Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Sending Address Candidates to the Client . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. Address Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. Probing Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4.1. Interaction with active_connection_id_limit . . . . . 5
4.4.2. Amplification Attack Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. Negotiating Extension Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.6. Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.6.1. ADD_ADDRESS Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.6.2. PUNCH_ME_NOW Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.6.3. REMOVE_ADDRESS Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
This document describes two ways to use QUIC ([RFC9000]) to traverse
NATs:
1. Using ICE ([RFC8445]) with an external signaling channel to
select a pair of UDP addresses. Once candidate nomination is
completed, a new QUIC connection between the two endpoints can be
established.
Seemann & Kinnear Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft QUIC NAT Traversal March 2024
2. Using a (proxied) QUIC connection as the signaling channel.
QUIC's path validation logic is used to test connectivity of
possible paths.
The first option documents how NAT traversal can be achieved using
unmodified QUIC and ICE stacks. The only requirement is the ability
to send and receive non-QUIC (STUN ([RFC5389])) packets on the UDP
socket that a QUIC server is listening on. However, it necessitates
running a separate signaling channel for the communication between
the two ICE agents.
The second option doesn't use ICE at all, although it makes use of
some of the concepts, in particular the address matching logic
described in [RFC8445]. It is assumed that the nodes are connected
via a proxied QUIC connection, for example using
[CONNECT-UDP-LISTEN]. Using the QUIC extension defined in this
document, the nodes coordinate QUIC path validation attempts that
create the necessary NAT bindings to achieve traversal of the NAT.
This mechanism makes extensive use of the path validation mechanism
described in [RFC9000]. In addition, the QUIC server needs the
capability to initiate path validation, which, as per [RFC9000], is
initiated by the client. Starting with a proxied QUIC connection
allows the nodes to start exchanging application data right away and
switch to the direct connection once it has been established and
deemed suitable for the application's needs.
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.
3. NAT Traversal Using an External Signaling Channel
When an external signaling channel is used, the QUIC connection is
established after the two ICE agents have agreed on a candidate pair.
This mode doesn't require any modification to existing QUIC stacks.
In particular, it does not necessitate the negotiation of the
extension defined in this document.
For address discovery to work, QUIC and ICE need to use the same UDP
socket. Since this requires demultiplexing of QUIC and STUN packets,
the QUIC bit cannot be greased as described in [RFC9287].
Seemann & Kinnear Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft QUIC NAT Traversal March 2024
Once ICE has completed, the client immediately initiates a normal
QUIC handshake using the server's address from the nominated address
pair. The ICE connectivity checks should have created the necessary
NAT bindings for the client's first flight to reach the server and
for the server's first flight to reach the client.
4. NAT Traversal using the NAT Traversal QUIC Extension
QUIC's path validation mechanism can be used to establish the
required NAT mappings that allow for a direct connection. Once the
NAT mappings are established, QUIC's connection migration can be used
to migrate the connection to a direct path. During the path
validation phase, multiple different paths might be established in
parallel. When using QUIC Multipath [MULTIPATH], these paths may be
used at the some time, however, the mechanism described in this
document does not require the use of QUIC multipath.
Although ICE is not directly used, the logic run on the client makes
use of ICE's candidate pairing logic (see especially Section 6.1.2.2
of [RFC8445]). Implementations are free to implement different
algorithms as they see fit.
This mode needs be negotiated during the handshake, see Section 4.5.
4.1. Gathering Address Candidates
The gathering of address candidates is out of scope for this
document. Endpoints MAY use the logic described in Sections 5.1.1
and 5.2 of [RFC8445], or they MAY use address candidates provided by
the application.
4.2. Sending Address Candidates to the Client
The server sends its address candidates to the client using
ADD_ADDRESS frames. It SHOULD NOT wait until address candidate
discovery has finished, instead, it SHOULD send address candidates as
soon as they become available. This speeds up the NAT traversal and
is similar to Trickle ICE ([RFC8838]).
Addresses sent to the client can be removed using the REMOVE_ADDRESS
frame if the address candidate becomes stale, e.g. because the
network interface becomes unavailable.
Since address matching is run on the client side, address candidates
are only sent from the server to the client. The client does not
send any addresses to the server.
Seemann & Kinnear Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft QUIC NAT Traversal March 2024
4.3. Address Matching
The client matches the address candidates sent by the server with its
own address candidates, forming candidate pairs. Section 5.1 of
[RFC8445] describes an algorithm for pairing address candidates.
Since the pairing algorithm is only run on the client side, the
endpoints do not need to agree on the algorithm used, and the client
is free to use a different algorithm.
4.4. Probing Paths
The client sends candidate pairs to the server using PUNCH_ME_NOW
frames. The client SHOULD start path validation (see Section 8.2 of
[RFC9000]) for the respective path immediately after sending the
PUNCH_ME_NOW frame.
The server SHOULD start path validation immediately upon receipt of a
PUNCH_ME_NOW frame. This document introduces the concept of path
validation on the server side, since [RFC9000] assumes that any QUIC
server is able to receive packets on a path without creating a NAT
binding first. Path validation on the server works as described in
Section 8.2.1 of [RFC9000], with additional rate-limiting (see
Section 4.4.2) to prevent amplification attacks.
Path probing happens in rounds, allowing the peers to limit the
bandwidth consumed by sending path validation packets. For every
round, the client MUST NOT send more PUNCH_ME_NOW frames than allowed
by the server's transport parameter. A new round is started when a
PUNCH_ME_NOW frame with a higher Round value is received. This
immediately cancels all path probes in progress.
To speed up NAT traversal, the client SHOULD send address pairs as
soon as they become available. However, for small concurrency
limits, it MAY delay sending of address pairs in order rank them
first and only initiate path validation for the highest-priority
candidate pairs.
4.4.1. Interaction with active_connection_id_limit
The active_connection_id_limit limits the number of connection IDs
that are active at any given time. Both endpoints need to use a
previously unused connection ID when validating a new path in order
to avoid linkability. Therefore, the active_connection_id_limit
effectively places a limit on the number of concurrent path
validations.
Seemann & Kinnear Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft QUIC NAT Traversal March 2024
Endpoints SHOULD set an active_connection_id_limit that is high
enough to allow for the desired number of concurrent path validation
attempts.
4.4.2. Amplification Attack Mitigation
TODO describe exactly how to migitate amplification attacks
4.5. Negotiating Extension Use
Endpoints advertise their support of the extension by sending the
nat_traversal (0x3d7e9f0bca12fea6) transport parameter (Section 7.4
of [RFC9000]).
The client MUST send this transport parameter with an empty value. A
server implementation that understands this transport parameter MUST
treat the receipt of a non-empty value as a connection error of type
TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR.
For the server, the value of this transport parameter is a variable-
length integer, the concurrency limit. The concurrency limit limits
the amount of concurrent NAT traversal attempts and can be used to
limit the bandwith required to execute the path validation. Any
value larger than 0 is valid. A client implementation that
understands this transport parameter MUST treat the receipt of a
value that is not a variable-length integer, or the receipt of the
value 0, as a connection error of type TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR.
In order to the use of this extension in 0-RTT packets, the client
MUST remember the value of this transport parameter. If 0-RTT data
is accepted by the server, the server MUST not disable this extension
on the resumed connection.
4.6. Frames
4.6.1. ADD_ADDRESS Frame
ADD_ADDRESS Frame {
Type (i) = 0x3d7e90..0x3d7e91,
Sequence Number (i),
[ IPv4 (32) ],
[ IPv6 (128) ],
Port (16),
}
The ADD_ADDRESS frame contains the following fields:
Sequence Number: A variable-length integer encoding the sequence
Seemann & Kinnear Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft QUIC NAT Traversal March 2024
number of this address advertisement.
IPv4: The IPv4 address. Only present if the least significant bit
of the frame type is 0.
IPv6: The IPv6 address. Only present if the least significant bit
of the frame type is 1.
Port: The port number.
ADD_ADDRESS frames are ack-eliciting. When lost, they SHOULD be
retransmitted, unless the address is not active anymore.
This frame is only sent from the server to the client. Servers MUST
treat receipt of an ADD_ADDRESS frame as a connection error of type
PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
4.6.2. PUNCH_ME_NOW Frame
PUNCH_ME_NOW Frame {
Type (i) = 0x3d7e92..0x3d7e93,
Round (i),
Paired With Sequence Number (i),
[ IPv4 (32) ],
[ IPv6 (128) ],
Port (16),
}
The PUNCH_ME_NOW frame contains the following fields:
Round: The sequence number of the NAT Traversal attempts.
Paired With Sequence Number: A variable-length integer encoding the
sequence number of the address that was paired with this address.
IPv4: The IPv4 address. Only present if the least significant bit
of the frame type is 0.
IPv6: The IPv6 address. Only present if the least significant bit
of the frame type is 1.
Port: The port number.
PUNCH_ME_NOW frames are ack-eliciting.
This frame is only sent from the client to the server. Clients MUST
treat receipt of a PUNCH_ME_NOW frame as a connection error of type
PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
Seemann & Kinnear Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft QUIC NAT Traversal March 2024
4.6.3. REMOVE_ADDRESS Frame
REMOVE_ADDRESS Frame {
Type (i) = 0x3d7e94,
Sequence Number (i),
}
The REMOVE_ADDRESS frame contains the following fields:
Sequence Number: A variable-length integer encoding the sequence
number of the address advertisement to be removed.
REMOVE_ADDRESS frames are ack-eliciting. When lost, they SHOULD be
retransmitted.
This frame is only sent from the server to the client. Servers MUST
treat receipt of an REMOVE_ADDRESS frame as a connection error of
type PROTOCOL_VIOLATION.
5. Security Considerations
This document expands QUIC's path validation logic to QUIC servers,
allowing a QUIC client to request sending of path validation packets
on unverified paths. A malicious client can direct traffic to a
target IP. This attack is similar to the IP address spoofing attack
that address validation during connection establishment (see
Section 8.1 of [RFC9000]) is designed to prevent. In practice
however, IP address spoofing is often additionally mitigated by both
the ingress and egress network at the IP layer, which is not possible
when using this extension. The server therefore needs to carefully
limit the amount of data it sends on unverified paths.
6. IANA Considerations
TODO: fill out registration request for the transport parameter and
frame types
7. Normative References
[CONNECT-UDP-LISTEN]
Schinazi, D. and A. Singh, "Proxying Bound UDP in HTTP",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-masque-
connect-udp-listen-02, 29 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-masque-
connect-udp-listen-02>.
Seemann & Kinnear Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft QUIC NAT Traversal March 2024
[MULTIPATH]
Liu, Y., Ma, Y., De Coninck, Q., Bonaventure, O., Huitema,
C., and M. Kühlewind, "Multipath Extension for QUIC", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-multipath-06,
23 October 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-quic-multipath-06>.
[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>.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5389>.
[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>.
[RFC8445] 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>.
[RFC8838] Ivov, E., Uberti, J., and P. Saint-Andre, "Trickle ICE:
Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for the Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Protocol", RFC 8838,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8838, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8838>.
[RFC9000] 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>.
[RFC9287] Thomson, M., "Greasing the QUIC Bit", RFC 9287,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9287, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9287>.
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Authors' Addresses
Seemann & Kinnear Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft QUIC NAT Traversal March 2024
Marten Seemann
Email: martenseemann@gmail.com
Eric Kinnear
Apple Inc.
One Apple Park Way
Cupertino, California 95014,
United States of America
Email: ekinnear@apple.com
Seemann & Kinnear Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 10]
