IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Masque] Call for MASQUE use cases

Dragana Damjanovic <dragana.damjano@gmail.com> Sat, 07 March 2020 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <dragana.damjano@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: masque@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: masque@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 503183A12A6 for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 04:52:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.186
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eaSTpn7pIjkB for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 04:52:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 306D13A12A3 for <masque@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 04:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id d8so4796582ion.7 for <masque@ietf.org>; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 04:51:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nOrYd0SigN3FjHCALa98UFby0tI+BzF07A7/tzsI1dc=; b=TzHXdvvx/tp5xVtvWkaTC/o1Ybv5+FZjDqP3cJkBSMHw/+HoeAUYd4gjYVeaWFZZrH XTKXPOKhgcYu5G3PNP0KKAm6/G53V+obx8Pgad8uMBYGv6ZYIJm4aIh/QgZzIs/CeOSa uhIxe1JyHVdPLnKgk6rh1L+m7fhJD6xqW2GHM9SQYQT+whP7TF6lxzFCgE8soH03eDrf wUAs60ykcaFe03baluqX9/XKC2mGjDUDF+pKLIzlVv9Jx4Rbm13r6C/+OQeexvu6FMEV Dt840JqMaLCveqF8cAARIRq4JJM0qe7Xg61K7ufLNYnqNH6ao46X3qmTNdljM/Rl3pRO gfjg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nOrYd0SigN3FjHCALa98UFby0tI+BzF07A7/tzsI1dc=; b=I9jjeL+ZYhuRcGzfKTuXyhngYvwUkOMMdt1cTAeKYVdCQtVHDZ8A0I8+0F+dyutDg4 kFgwixdyK3G1S04so9brK8kbWsbNMKPM2sTEAvD2TWFeybnYhPC4TWx/y31Ens81ripJ 4X84nWS++LRZJkaFiGreCdPCGvn8Wr856aCcUHMD2FxRPzk7MKpQkl4xwLVBaImtC/6G UPTZwysBjKQt9P8LajGqqhbPc226x/J3j3erlPXU+67vYjFeRqkRnl2Qt1XBLLiCoeMF eMsoHPYcbP5xwUkQGbznYo2gijmdkd2Rb4lgXR4TOyNHiT0yl1gI/5ya+cYCeYtHr/yq gkhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3WqJiGvpJ9XacJ7TbF1DGYLRFr4szTaV5ERBlN4XLSwX37/wzf DM9FoM77A0YkeTt8d1ekCuWvES+rUAa7KkBjtgQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsxv/uEU+mpqzgalkgFLKA+Ino9vdwBeOuSvCX+14ecyTTaOJGDJlSaZfVhFP5HdNRnEfujVSVWbSUgBiCu5BA=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:c85a:: with SMTP id r26mr3187604jao.74.1583585496107; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 04:51:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <D46D764C-F682-472A-AFDA-32DDF5CA5F6B@heapingbits.net> <CABcZeBPMUNgOVWMS_sXPTsCU2R+EaK9JDuZsJQ5KSQROXE+4Sg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsAVXmyvqJKNzcmHOvM3NvPqhpfC9MuDEq9kNUBKe7=7=g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-etTk6CAqbL1MdSV6gdCgqC2Wz8cdUqbdzbM2h3LKAMhw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsDqgx7h+TRKLOgW+a3B3+TLWoRE9_DVBVhcKGRC3G=rog@mail.gmail.com> <CAG0m4gQh7=Gvx2_k53st+szAoj+96ef=OK5hqp8_zKSbKr091Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oaxe54kPPMpsMWuoMiKDznHoyhTLHwmxJeTXdu-zh_xUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG0m4gT0vA4qMZ=XFJ8DpF8MW4ARugzbCcQU1mgV5BYeX+rA=w@mail.gmail.com> <CAPDSy+6zdJah6dAZgdN-9k84b-2+O3SJY6UjObVxPt22dn5fBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+6zdJah6dAZgdN-9k84b-2+O3SJY6UjObVxPt22dn5fBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dragana Damjanovic <dragana.damjano@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 13:51:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CAG0m4gR2rJ2YsV9w4XyZCvq2isGrSQZ9d1vqXNUXwzHe1WdUtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>, MASQUE <masque@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f7905f05a0433a08"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/DS0JKwBioyfONjI3SlkorNhQ7aM>
Subject: Re: [Masque] Call for MASQUE use cases
X-BeenThere: masque@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiplexed Application Substrate over QUIC Encryption <masque.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/masque>, <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/masque/>
List-Post: <mailto:masque@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque>, <mailto:masque-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 12:52:26 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 12:52:26 -0000

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 7:56 PM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Dragana,
>
> What's your use-case where the client has a set of IP address literals but
> no hostname?
>
>
The client has both.
The idea was to use DoH to resolve host name. Send IP address to a proxy
and use ESNI (or what ever the new name might be). in this way you do not
reveal host names you are connecting to to the proxy.

dragana


> David
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:00 PM Dragana Damjanovic <
> dragana.damjano@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 3:19 PM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:05 PM Dragana Damjanovic <
>>> dragana.damjano@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was looking into implementing sending an IP address in CONNECT
>>>> request to a proxy instead of host name. It is not easy to figure out if
>>>> connect should be retried with another IP address.. Having better error
>>>> codes would be helpful.
>>>>
>>>> dragana
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's an interesting case. IIUC correctly, your client might ask the
>>> proxy to use IPv6, which could fail, and your client might then try IPv4?
>>>
>>>
>> yes. That would be most common case. We may retry a different ip address,
>> but I am actually not sure how often is something like this happening
>> because it may have a long delay depending on the netowrk error(try PIv4
>> address 1 and if it fails tray IPv4 address 2)
>>
>>
>>> A failure such as this today would be communicated by returning an HTTP
>>> error status. Is there a gap that mean HTTP cannot be used to communicate
>>> the specific error condition you describe?
>>>
>>
>> no, I think you cannot be 100% sure, the error may mean multiple things.
>>
>>
>> Thinking about it more, maybe it would be better to send a list of IP
>> addresses and let proxy chose one or do a happy-eyeballing for example.
>> That would mean a CONNECT with list of IP addresses instead of one or a
>> host name.
>>
>> dragana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Lucas
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>> Masque mailing list
>> Masque@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email