draft-aboba-avtcore-quic-multiplexing-00.txt   draft-aboba-avtcore-quic-multiplexing-01.txt 
AVTCORE Working Group B. Aboba AVTCORE Working Group B. Aboba
INTERNET-DRAFT Microsoft Corporation INTERNET-DRAFT Microsoft Corporation
Category: Informational P. Thatcher Category: Informational P. Thatcher
Expires: April 24, 2018 Google Expires: April 29, 2018 Google
C. Perkins C. Perkins
University of Glasgow University of Glasgow
23 October 2017 29 October 2017
QUIC Multiplexing QUIC Multiplexing
draft-aboba-avtcore-quic-multiplexing-00.txt draft-aboba-avtcore-quic-multiplexing-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document describes potential approaches to multiplexing of QUIC If QUIC is to be used in a peer-to-peer manner, with NAT traversal,
along with RTP, RTCP, DTLS, STUN, TURN and ZRTP in WebRTC peer-to- then it is necessary to be able to demultiplex QUIC and STUN flows
peer data exchange. running on a single UDP port. This memo discusses options for how to
perform such demultiplexing. It also considers demultiplexing of
QUIC and WebRTC traffic (both media and data) when running on a
single UDP port.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 7 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
2.3. Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
There are a number of ways in which communication between WebRTC QUIC [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] is a new network transport protocol.
peers may utilize QUIC. One of these is transport of RTP over QUIC, While it is initially intended as a replacement for TCP in order to
described in [I-D.rtpfolks-quic-rtp-over-quic]. Another is use of better support HTTP/2 [RFC7540] it should eventually be useful as a
QUIC [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] for data exchange. A Javascript API general purpose transport. HTTP is an asymmetric client-server
for use of QUIC in WebRTC data exchange has been incorporated into protocol, but other uses of QUIC might operate in a peer-to-peer
the ORTC API [ORTC], under development within the W3C ORTC Community manner and so will need effective NAT traversal using ICE [RFC5245],
Group. which which makes use of STUN [RFC5389] and TURN [RFC5766] to
discover NAT bindings. This STUN and TURN traffic needs to run on
the same UDP port as the QUIC traffic. Accordingly, if QUIC is to be
used in a peer-to-peer manner, then it needs to be possible to
demultiplex QUIC, STUN, and TURN traffic running on a single UDP
port. This memo discusses how to do this.
In a WebRTC scenario where ICE [RFC5245] is utilized for NAT In addition, there are a number of ways in which communication
traversal, SRTP [RFC3711] is keyed using DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764] and QUIC between WebRTC peers may utilize QUIC. One of these is transport of
is used for data exchange, RTP/RTCP [RFC3550] STUN [RFC5389], TURN RTP over QUIC, described in [I-D.rtpfolks-quic-rtp-over-quic].
[RFC5766], DTLS [RFC6347], ZRTP [RFC6189] and QUIC may all need to be Another is use of QUIC for data exchange. A Javascript API for use of
multiplexed over a single ICE transport. QUIC in WebRTC data exchange has been incorporated into the ORTC API
[ORTC], under development within the W3C ORTC Community Group.
In a WebRTC scenario where ICE is utilized for NAT traversal, SRTP
[RFC3711] is keyed using DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764] and QUIC is used for
data exchange, RTP/RTCP [RFC3550], STUN, TURN, DTLS [RFC6347], ZRTP
[RFC6189] and QUIC may all need to be multiplexed over a single ICE
transport.
As noted in [RFC7983] Figure 3, protocol demultiplexing currently As noted in [RFC7983] Figure 3, protocol demultiplexing currently
relies upon differentiation based on the first octet, as follows: relies upon differentiation based on the first octet, as follows:
+----------------+ +----------------+
| [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN | [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN
| | | |
| [16..19] -+--> forward to ZRTP | [16..19] -+--> forward to ZRTP
| | | |
packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at page 4, line 50
|1|1|1|Type (5) | Long header packet |1|1|1|Type (5) | Long header packet
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|1|0|C|K|Type3| Short header packet |1|1|0|C|K|Type3| Short header packet
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note: [QUIC-Spin] proposes to add a spin bit to the type octet within Note: [QUIC-Spin] proposes to add a spin bit to the type octet within
the QUIC header, in order to allow for RTT calculation. This would the QUIC header, in order to allow for RTT calculation. This would
leave 4 bits for the type field in the long header packet and 2 bits leave 4 bits for the type field in the long header packet and 2 bits
for the type field in the short header, which would accomodate the for the type field in the short header, which would accommodate the
type field values allocated in [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]. type field values allocated in [I-D.ietf-quic-transport].
2.1.1. Pros and Cons The advantage to this approach is that it adds no additional
overhead on-the-wire. However it does require a reduction in the
The advantage to this approach is that it adds no additional overhead size of the QUIC Type fields and could potentially require
on-the-wire. However it does require a reduction in the size of the allocation of the following initial octet code points for QUIC:
QUIC Type fields and could potentially require allocation of the For the Long header, 225-230 (241-246 when the spin bit is set)
following initial octet code points for QUIC: For the Long header, and for the Short header, 193-195 (209-11 with spin bit set),
225-230 (241-246 when the spin bit is set) and for the Short header, 209-211 (225-227 with spin bit set) and 217-219 (233-235 with the
193-195 (209-11 with spin bit set), 209-211 (225-227 with spin bit spin bit set). Utilizing all of these code points for QUIC would
set) and 217-219 (233-235 with the spin bit set). Utilizing all of leave limited code points available for future allocations.
these code points for QUIC would leave limited code points available
for future allocations.
2.2. Multiplexing Shim 2.2. Multiplexing Shim
In this approach, an initial octet not allocated within [RFC7983] In this approach, an initial octet not allocated within [RFC7983]
would be prepended to each QUIC packet, allowing QUIC packets to be would be prepended to each QUIC packet, allowing QUIC packets to be
differentiated from RTP, RTCP, DTLS, STUN, TURN and ZRTP based on the differentiated from RTP, RTCP, DTLS, STUN, TURN and ZRTP based on the
first octet alone. As an example, an octet with decimal value 192 first octet alone. As an example, an octet with decimal value 192
could be used: could be used:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|1|0|0|0|0|0|0| |1|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.2.1. Pros and Cons Advantages of this approach include simplicity and the consumption
of only a single initial octet code point for demultiplexing of
Advantages of this approach include simplicity and the consumption of QUIC. The disadvantage is the addition of a single octet of
only a single initial octet code point for demultiplexing of QUIC. overhead to every QUIC packet, which could impact performance
The disadvantage is the addition of a single octet of overhead to where small payloads are exchanged, such as in peer-to-peer
every QUIC packet, which could impact performance where small gaming.
payloads are exchanged, such as in peer-to-peer gaming.
2.3. Heuristics 2.3. Heuristics
During the QUIC WG interim in Seattle, Martin Thomson suggested the During the QUIC WG interim in Seattle, Martin Thomson suggested the
following heuristics for differentiation of QUIC packets from following heuristics for differentiation of QUIC packets from
RTP/RTCP/DTLS/STUN/TURN/ZRTP: RTP/RTCP/DTLS/STUN/TURN/ZRTP:
1. Demultiplex differently during the "QUIC handshake" 1. Demultiplex differently during the "QUIC handshake"
and "steady state". and "steady state".
2. During handshake, we only need to worry about the QUIC 2. During handshake, we only need to worry about the QUIC
skipping to change at page 6, line 15 skipping to change at page 6, line 23
a. QUIC doesn't need the Long header after the handshake. a. QUIC doesn't need the Long header after the handshake.
b. The QUIC Short header (0x0XXXXXXX or 0x01XXXXXX with b. The QUIC Short header (0x0XXXXXXX or 0x01XXXXXX with
the spin bit set) does not conflict with RTP/RTCP the spin bit set) does not conflict with RTP/RTCP
(0x10XXXXXX), so we only need to worry about (0x10XXXXXX), so we only need to worry about
conflicts with STUN/TURN/DTLS/ZRTP. conflicts with STUN/TURN/DTLS/ZRTP.
c. Disallow simultaneous use of DTLS and QUIC c. Disallow simultaneous use of DTLS and QUIC
Short header packets. Short header packets.
i. Alternative: when using DTLS and QUIC at the same i. Alternative: when using DTLS and QUIC at the same
time, only use the QUIC Long header. Not optimal, time, only use the QUIC Long header. Not optimal,
but isn't really needed. but isn't really needed.
d. ICE can be demuxed using the magic cookie and checksum. d. ICE can be demultiplexed using the magic cookie
and checksum.
i. Alternative: STUN can only conflict with 3 i. Alternative: STUN can only conflict with 3
QUIC packet types: Version Negotiation, QUIC packet types: Version Negotiation,
Client Initial, and Server Stateless Retry. Client Initial, and Server Stateless Retry.
Out of those, none should be needed during Out of those, none should be needed during
the steady state. the steady state.
e. You shouldn't need to demultiplex QUIC with TURN channel e. We shouldn't need to demultiplex QUIC with TURN channel
data or other STUN traffic. But what about consent data or other STUN traffic. What about consent packets?
packets?
2.3.1. Pros and Cons
This approach has the advantage that it requires no changes to QUIC This approach has the advantage that it requires no changes to
headers, nor does it add any overhead to QUIC packets. Disadvantages QUIC headers, nor does it add any overhead to QUIC packets.
include additional complexity within the multiplexing algorithm, the Disadvantages include additional complexity within the
consumption of additional multiplexing code points, and potential multiplexing algorithm, the consumption of additional multiplexing
future difficulties in adapting the algorithm to support changes to code points, and potential future difficulties in adapting the
the QUIC protocol or additional protocols to be multiplexed. algorithm to support changes to the QUIC protocol or additional
protocols to be multiplexed.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
The solutions discussed in this document could potentially introduce The solutions discussed in this document could potentially introduce
some additional security considerations beyond those detailed in some additional security considerations beyond those detailed in
[RFC7983]. [RFC7983].
Due to the additional logic required, if mis-implemented, heuristics Due to the additional logic required, if mis-implemented, heuristics
have the potential to misclassify packets. have the potential to mis-classify packets.
When QUIC is used for only for data exchange, the TLS-within-QUIC When QUIC is used for only for data exchange, the TLS-within-QUIC
exchange [I-D.ietf-quic-tls] derives keys used solely to protect the exchange [I-D.ietf-quic-tls] derives keys used solely to protect the
QUIC data packets. If properly implemented, this should not affect QUIC data packets. If properly implemented, this should not affect
the transport of SRTP nor the derivation of SRTP keys via DTLS-SRTP, the transport of SRTP nor the derivation of SRTP keys via DTLS-SRTP,
but if badly implemented, both transport and key derivation could be but if badly implemented, both transport and key derivation could be
adversely impacted. adversely impacted.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA. This document does not require actions by IANA.
5. References 5. References
5.1. Informative References 5.1. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-quic-tls] [I-D.ietf-quic-tls]
Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using Transport Layer Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using Transport Layer Security
Security (TLS) to Secure QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-tls-07 (TLS) to Secure QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-tls-07 (work in
(work in progress), October 2017. progress), October 13, 2017.
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport] [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic- and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-07 (work
transport-07 (work in progress), October 2017. in progress), October 13, 2017.
[I-D.rtpfolks-quic-rtp-over-quic] [I-D.rtpfolks-quic-rtp-over-quic]
Ott, J., Even, R., Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "RTP over Ott, J., Even, R., Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "RTP over
QUIC", Internet draft (work in progress), draft-rtpfolks- QUIC", draft-rtpfolks-quic-rtp-over-quic-01 (work in
quic-rtp-over-quic-01, September 1, 2017. progress), September 1, 2017.
[ORTC] Raymond, R., Aboba, B. and J. Uberti, "Object RTC (ORTC) [ORTC] Raymond, R., Aboba, B. and J. Uberti, "Object RTC (ORTC)
API for WebRTC", W3C, http://draft.ortc.org/, October API for WebRTC", W3C, http://draft.ortc.org/, October 2017.
2017.
[QUIC-Issue] Perkins, C., "QUIC header format/demultiplexing", [QUIC-Issue] Perkins, C., "QUIC header format/demultiplexing",
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/426, March, https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/426, March,
2017. 2017.
[QUIC-Spin] Huitema, C., "QUIC Latency Spin Bit", [QUIC-Spin] Huitema, C., "QUIC Latency Spin Bit",
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/609, June, https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/609, June
2017. 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI
10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc- 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, July
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>. 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. [RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
(SRTP)", RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004, RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, DOI Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, DOI
10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010, <http://www.rfc- 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5245>. editor.org/info/rfc5245>.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008, <http://www.rfc- 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5389>. editor.org/info/rfc5389>.
[RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010, <http://www.rfc- 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5764>. editor.org/info/rfc5764>.
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal [RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010, <http://www.rfc- 10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5766>. editor.org/info/rfc5766>.
[RFC6189] Zimmermann, P., Johnston, A., Ed., and J. Callas, "ZRTP: [RFC6189] Zimmermann, P., Johnston, A., Ed., and J. Callas, "ZRTP:
Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP", RFC Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP", RFC 6189,
6189, DOI 10.17487/RFC6189, April 2011, <http://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC6189, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6189>. editor.org/info/rfc6189>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>. January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7983] Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Salgueiro, "Multiplexing Scheme [RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, DOI
Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-
RFC 7983, September 2016. editor.org/info/rfc7540>.
[RFC7983] Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Salgueiro, "Multiplexing Scheme
Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)",
RFC 7983, DOI 10.17487/RFC7983, September 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7983>.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Martin Thomson, Roni Even and other We would like to thank Martin Thomson, Roni Even and other
participants in the IETF QUIC and AVTCORE working groups for their participants in the IETF QUIC and AVTCORE working groups for their
discussion of the QUIC multiplexing issue, and their input relating discussion of the QUIC multiplexing issue, and their input relating
to potential solutions. to potential solutions.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
skipping to change at page 9, line 31 skipping to change at page 9, line 31
Peter Thatcher Peter Thatcher
Google Google
747 6th St S 747 6th St S
Kirkland, WA 98033 Kirkland, WA 98033
USA USA
Email: pthatcher@google.com Email: pthatcher@google.com
Colin Perkins Colin Perkins
University of Glasgow
School of Computing Science School of Computing Science
University of Glasgow University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ Glasgow G12 8QQ
United Kingdom United Kingdom
Email: csp@csperkins.org Email: csp@csperkins.org
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
112 lines changed or deleted 127 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/