IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Masque] QUIC proxying and stateless reset

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Sun, 04 December 2022 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
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 DE456C14F738 for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Dec 2022 15:30:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=GNVnfa7o; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=TNgfdiso
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j1gCWbhgDiQc for <masque@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Dec 2022 15:30:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82500C14CF04 for <masque@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Dec 2022 15:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3B73200564; Sun, 4 Dec 2022 18:30:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap41 ([10.202.2.91]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 04 Dec 2022 18:30:35 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1670196635; x=1670283035; bh=so kfhjmKGGiAGlJgtTauiPNC6mlJA4+smewElyDpyr8=; b=GNVnfa7o2b2bYAsiAR +9P7z4R0WugpC/LigodJj7AGaaDEhsNznxyXf5uJLS74Axbdx8aXf8EHsZ5W+Ehl 8aNJosLVZAJ0HKHWjiuOA+jHw/h5kHVEPOtXbr+95e5ehYRr3CL4VCydEveTzFzD 2t+EzzwdfGt5+EOox1xY03yak/54UBfaXNQw8TePkUvFGZPLNKmgCuWreIEDaBhy roJfw55Azg15juVBEQE2zU6iA/p10Pl0+TiCFLiDEnl9CbknJtt+6B44bFYNdt9v XFxTJm4VtCyxmhQa4RtnVvEWLwuBQ/ZoMPhqTnbXCdwXOrsoaeOTe3ydfgGlfW10 KkLQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1670196635; x=1670283035; bh=sokfhjmKGGiAGlJgtTauiPNC6mlJ A4+smewElyDpyr8=; b=TNgfdisocWTNMW6H2KQjiGjP13oWq20eJC9NcSrBDyJd Jftt6AS17hhFfqUjPuerL8HYUByqEY2G/A0lmAF2/53BNSl4TfXS9q08lXU0+eIz Ysm5+l7PyU3gdM09rA/GSC87gUmZLHz+8bsPXZrGRnnWSOJ9pBSp8wBNHoJTGxnY YE7HAzAZRqt4cFW7G//3Vvq5Ne8FUSJSY/+LRz1t3OSH/U6FnhyU/6t94yYZy4Fw gGpV2tZVr/bh/PyfiUOmOctKtli5hhw/GWraeaY6MuJxWkLoFSCugXb2S4n5staa MBV0B9jgsvpeLtvsvHUjhVgsqfHPWjMzrNd61Yuysg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:my2NY6JdkXZ7CleakqnOn9dnmfv4ZWot8LNkTNlon1WtKL_Nt3plCg> <xme:my2NYyKGUitY9ct0Gd74WhsZUnZqKcSgiRxvUeFotYmso3riktUPXh1csp4nCxN9w o9DmV01uMP_RQUAyq8>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudefgdduudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvfevufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeduleeufedthfegieeiie ekkeejvdejgfevudffgeefvdffleevfeekudeiieekleenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvg ht
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:my2NY6sAXrGT8YmfJVzfLJvs7FdIIpXOU_VUIyJfO5_sAOHYrvnjAA> <xmx:my2NY_ZWJyYLZai1ORBbASSqmhIO0h_yDlWIKX6ckRsBhK5Vf4v7mQ> <xmx:my2NYxbP7FHWLGHXBDc66Xx7YVQQyUuIsHRqlLitpadG5z7JTO4egA> <xmx:my2NYz2boMc0F9ZK3aWsS1BBcv6uU07zJsX-LaribBLt_bqszM9Stw>
Feedback-ID: ic129442d:Fastmail
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id F31F2234007B; Sun, 4 Dec 2022 18:30:34 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1115-g8b801eadce-fm-20221102.001-g8b801ead
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <039686f9-c999-4089-bccb-b95970a8503e@betaapp.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+6VLSPRZnq2Yyy_b=RGYnnRDh+6v05bbOtwBBBQLy=pEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9b01d7e4-3ad4-4baf-9e94-6f80c9f33451@betaapp.fastmail.com> <CAPDSy+6VLSPRZnq2Yyy_b=RGYnnRDh+6v05bbOtwBBBQLy=pEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2022 10:30:15 +1100
From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: masque@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/nRx9UZb-rmXZYmzpmP9ZOe5yA7s>
Subject: Re: [Masque] QUIC proxying and stateless reset
X-BeenThere: masque@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 04 Dec 2022 23:30:45 -0000


On Thu, Dec 1, 2022, at 02:17, David Schinazi wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> This is interesting, but I'm not sure I follow how it applies outside 
> of draft-pauly-masque-quic-proxy. In the non-extended CONNECT-UDP case, 
> the proxy operates very similarly to a NAT and has a single tool at its 
> disposal for communication closure to the server: ICMP. 

Doesn't this expose the flow to DoS?  At least the client is able to ignore or accept ICMP on its own terms.

> it needs to know 
> that CONNECT-UDP is carrying QUIC and not another protocol. 

Yeah, this is true, but the protocol implied by the below establishes that (as would the quic-proxy trimmings).

> Additionally, I don't expect proxies will want to check every single 
> packet for every single SRT they're aware of. But having the proxy 
> generate its own SRTs alongside its own CIDs and sending them to the 
> client makes sense to me.

This might be OK, though maybe we just need to offer the choice.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email