Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5tuple routing (#3536)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 01:03 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7825D3A0402 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gNVjNw-nhyVl for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-12.smtp.github.com (out-12.smtp.github.com [192.30.254.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C2A33A03F3 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-39b4a70.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.16.66]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD03121103 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1585530194; bh=7wiBClqJB1hFFquhxo3le/P4uuLg4pKCPf51o/xnuA8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=OpRq94jcVCuN5PsR7OmG3CuTveyEtoIFBqrf0BbheioZ5ErNUvODQxSC3yYz2ovGz lwl6Qz/gOPQs9J5SnXsCHfWOPJlB1Vmn+OpxOT+doTRvWi7BdFhJIN11khbeeRzIAM 2xNqxHiRNmKyxtLBQBbd4sYFk+wOn3fVwoummTuI=
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:03:14 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6AJ4VARDKYSLSYFTN4RUTFFEVBNHHCFYX2PM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536/review/383478266@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] 5tuple routing (#3536)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e8145528792e_791d3fdd1eecd96c524fa"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/EovdSQ2-PWYMVhUONmw0v7kUgaM>
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: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 01:03:18 -0000

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

The change here to the semantics of disable_active_migration makes me a little uncomfortable.  I would suggest that we discuss this on-list a little.

I don't think that the implied semantic is entirely accurate.  In previous discussions, @nibanks pointed out that they would handle NAT rebinding with special logic (and likely move to close connections shortly afterwards).  That suggests that keep-alive logic was not necessary for those connections that might be affected.  However, this text suggests that if you see the transport parameter you would want to use keep-alives, or just do explicit closes within your understanding of the NAT timeout window to avoid the possibility of migration. 

Thus, rather than a "please avoid X", this turns into a "take active steps to prevent X".

I've also tried to make some editorial suggestions, but those you can take or leave.

> @@ -1156,6 +1156,36 @@ SHOULD ignore any such packets.
 
 Servers MUST drop incoming packets under all other circumstances.
 
+### Considerations for 5-tuple routing architectures
+
+QUIC servers can be deployed behind a 5-tuple based routing architecture that

```suggestion
QUIC endpoints can be deployed behind a 5-tuple based routing architecture that
```

> +ports. In such an architecture, clients that change IP address or port are
+likely to be routed to a different server. There are several actions that can
+mitigate or resolve operational and security issues in this case.

```suggestion
ports. When routing depends on addresses that the endpoint does not control,
changes to the IP address or port of peers could result in packets being routed
to a different server. The following actions could mitigate or resolve
operational and security issues in this case:
```

> @@ -1156,6 +1156,36 @@ SHOULD ignore any such packets.
 
 Servers MUST drop incoming packets under all other circumstances.
 
+### Considerations for 5-tuple routing architectures
+
+QUIC servers can be deployed behind a 5-tuple based routing architecture that
+delivers packets based on both the source and destination IP addresses and
+ports. In such an architecture, clients that change IP address or port are
+likely to be routed to a different server. There are several actions that can
+mitigate or resolve operational and security issues in this case.
+
+* Servers can use an out-of-band mechanism to deliver packets to the correct

```suggestion
* Endpoints can use an out-of-band mechanism to deliver packets to the correct
```

> +* If the server has another address where the 5-tuple based routers are not on-
+path, the preferred_address transport parameter can communicate that address and
+thus support changing client IP addresses without difficulty. For example, the
+initial address may route to a 5-tuple based load balancer, and the preferred
+address could indicate a separate server address with routing robust to client
+address changes. However, if the client does not use the preferred address,
+other measures are necessary.

```suggestion
* A server can request that a connection be migrated to an address that is
unique using the preferred_address transport parameter. For example, the initial
address may route to a 5-tuple based load balancer, and the preferred address
could indicate a separate server address that does not require the use of the
client address for routing. Note that clients could choose not to use the
preferred address.

```

> +address change is likely to terminate the connection, which can lead it to use
+strategies to avoid NAT rebinding or terminate connections when its IP address
+changes.

```suggestion
address change is likely to terminate the connection. Clients might infer from
this that they might need to avoid NAT rebinding or terminate connections when
its IP address changes.
```

This is problematic, but I don't know how else to rephrase this statement.  The problem here is that this ADDS SEMANTICS to disable_active_migration.  That's a pretty big deal.

> +* If the server has another address where the 5-tuple based routers are not on-
+path, the preferred_address transport parameter can communicate that address and
+thus support changing client IP addresses without difficulty. For example, the
+initial address may route to a 5-tuple based load balancer, and the preferred
+address could indicate a separate server address with routing robust to client
+address changes. However, if the client does not use the preferred address,
+other measures are necessary.
+
+If a server does not implement one of the solutions above, it SHOULD send the
+disable_active_migration transport parameter to inform the client that any
+address change is likely to terminate the connection, which can lead it to use
+strategies to avoid NAT rebinding or terminate connections when its IP address
+changes.
+
+Regardless of other mitigations, 5-tuple routing introduces new possibilities
+to create a Reset Oracle. An attacker could tweak the source address or port of

```suggestion
to create a stateless reset oracle. An attacker could tweak the source address
or port of
```

I think that the full name is necessary, and capitalization isn't quite right.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3536#pullrequestreview-383478266