[quicwg/base-drafts] SOCKS over QUIC (#2518)

madhanraj <notifications@github.com> Tue, 12 March 2019 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77300130F0B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 02:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b9KbdEuNot_R for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 02:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-15.smtp.github.com (out-15.smtp.github.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DE931274D0 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 02:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 02:59:48 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1552384788; bh=aAJo91QLSU0uSWO1KrJmFKSHyoCoGOfWdL69uZDqMHw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DiApJXmbWepAbB5wRNlyx1D2UK0QAbM2W8dk5LTKgga6CHpSrDpHk834v6VD9RvIo ejhOMiy6Z6QzcX/HuaulCTCEaeygr5LTcVxjhp5jFxgbFoWAOGpFjXxxfEGQW1XP6a /++SLIAuxe/n1C1QkbsYFrzwltIhjTC4Nj6zTwyU=
From: madhanraj <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab22a20262e7673c4dcf5202fb226c33fac8aa68b892cf00000001189f451492a169ce19071b33@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2518@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] SOCKS over QUIC (#2518)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5c878314730ce_8e03ff3130d45bc1713cb"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: madhanraj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/B-pdBOKazEhm451GXtLRsbnzOK4>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:59:52 -0000

Currently, the SOCKS and QUIC don't work straight forward. 
When SOCKS is used, a REQUEST (method, dest port, dest IP) has to be sent during each time of connection establishment. This is straight forward in TCP but in QUIC we establish the connection once with the SOCKS server and multiplex the streams amongst it. 
**Hence, a new method for SOCKS over QUIC is proposed where the REQUEST and RESPONSE are modified according to the QUIC design**

Another important issue with SOCKS is the initial overhead. In our real-time results with Samsung Smartphones, we observed that most the application are short-lived and socks delay impacts the user experience.  Hence we have to decide the packets to be packed one the 0-RTT and also if the tunnel can be pre-established with one-time authentication messages being transferred. 

**We would like to know, if there is similar work going on or shall we submit a fresh RFC including the problem and our approaches**

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: