IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Packet number encryption

Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com> Fri, 09 February 2018 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilvv@google.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704381242F7 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:17:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 rDTKhuI0HQNk for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:17:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (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 A6B431270AE for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:17:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id a9so5688398qtj.8 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Feb 2018 13:17:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FVtq7IiN/XnnMGx+q9RbGgrfevsfx8phRvBXAg/wWaY=; b=kKpvB96g9o1nVJ8tfPhVGl2NezgtlMAncKO437eoCgr0htIWK8yTgK8G7FAHKU/ZPP 5RNPrGOpe0CZToebPUC9HdWskl1bkNx/cet6zCTJ71JYLZeZL3JFMPuHRhPc2fqXuJOV PhpqnjSvWFWch55SIDqpKIr9uJJ1Rju4inNulqMNpTgYXsdmiquMa2NJzsiROhghsNLk qGqIxJmqDcycgL0f5O/b0vER4fGOP9r/dERuWCmAWjbbpRH98LAFWYwJyIt1Ax+G494Y tZ891q8wr2aSQfP7lvqEdto9GgphMDaJrxbeLe4QuLCTsFhueJaR3JC4ZSGo44SB0YlV U9kg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FVtq7IiN/XnnMGx+q9RbGgrfevsfx8phRvBXAg/wWaY=; b=EwOCXjphBVX/YvcLqUWSUXMHLo3t8/bXF5+nAhWuaGve1Re+0vpPqefQlLc6tkAQmm x4RLk/qtZ8uPROb0WXkI0ZVFJVD0i5VhN/TmAFjA8B2T91gw6J/GvQ1NcFzHJDsdr+yI ruaM7Av0abZoxiS3iqZEMN+cwQVslWIZZyQtTxd22L5oQVzcc0GcHYjLKrX+KtPndABp 3A2RyHHm+8hH5NOk4L7EW9k5QZDWd+XD3tIJtwcQq0umtGK/goF6wY0GQWtHQJ/zCwQ8 HcdBz8J/B2zxc9ewrvHZwqC1VLTu8lbDYRkJf0suvsi0agMX2dpa3Ip7w/tNKhcVfnks /OfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPApENO6zm48DUW7WO0zKwxaCNh4oxqSTDpxGsp2OHjKf9X3u3NP 7uTgrfEHpFPQBRgILSve3/Z5pUFCNK6AuKcuTzZ4hg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225yOJZpifkIdIANy/wwyGrDySL5gfz+jpYLTzhoh/GZOILC12B8XpAqZ4PHlbqs0mZjeSxfTebWJGeb3pQPc20=
X-Received: by 10.237.49.199 with SMTP id 65mr6742601qth.204.1518211031580; Fri, 09 Feb 2018 13:17:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.34.132 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:17:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR21MB0144A36781B9AB9BEC7B99A8B6F30@MWHPR21MB0144.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABkgnnVyo3MmWtVULiV=FJTnR528qfY8-OmKGWAs0bCvri-a_g@mail.gmail.com> <2102BDC2-62C0-4A76-8ADE-8167437E2D07@trammell.ch> <CAN1APde6o6=aCXuWajPFSU=jXv-ERdVHk=uyjM71uQ_uU-oMTg@mail.gmail.com> <8e833029-68b5-2787-3897-a0f7818a259f@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <1de39727-eeec-0e7a-1e8b-5ed50433c5bd@cs.tcd.ie> <MWHPR08MB2432D0216BC8FE1B0D9E3690DAFD0@MWHPR08MB2432.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAGD1bZauKbucs_5n7RQbK8H2HiyfiqpGVEcKreGA6umhMBSFgg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPNrc-9vANSH02r++p53s6gN4pVB8DMd80nUxOhKTp3dA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gMvHSBhpUvsQCCkV2_o+d_wchF3R3L6H8mp6nKNaaRmSw@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR21MB0133CCAA6807469BA983D00BB6FC0@CY4PR21MB0133.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnW4xr_YzpsvCxaJJgcQdBTuX=Yv735_sdd4VoMfji8mbA@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR21MB0133C759D4A08A4988B641B2B6FC0@CY4PR21MB0133.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <bdf88936-8edc-d56e-ee59-c9d597058edd@huitema.net> <CY4PR21MB01337C8A700E58B49D90B712B6FC0@CY4PR21MB0133.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <119b3276-5799-1cc3-8982-7479171bbf27@huitema.net> <CAOYVs2pi8-NVuS+crNMfjsP-n5upK3=5tPeQ8OSGpOvL6RTrjA@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR21MB0133A1117B2733BBCF049C5FB6FC0@CY4PR21MB0133.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <CAAZdMad-vEBj4Zw-9=bM8hfSui68YBPTi88ZB434giYMXA1viQ@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR21MB0144A36781B9AB9BEC7B99A8B6F30@MWHPR21MB0144.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
From: Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:17:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAZdMaf_okyh1FHemPK90=RQp2Tb-p34SA_C77RLp68bwWSE2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Packet number encryption
To: Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb@microsoft.com>
Cc: Marten Seemann <martenseemann@gmail.com>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>, huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c124aa23bd91b0564ce0d6a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/2Xp1vUiJlfhxZ7p3tEfH6vOFYpQ>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 21:17:14 -0000

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Praveen Balasubramanian <pravb@microsoft.com
> wrote:

> AFAICT the goal is to perform some transform for preventing middlebox
> ossification. Encryption is one possible transform but is it the only
> possible one?
>

The goal of the transform is to prevent the middleboxes from interpreting
the packet number, so yes, anything you'll propose would be encryption.


> The numbers I quoted were from a quick test by modifying the winquic
> implementation to add an additional encrypt / decrypt step on packet number
> size worth of data. If anyone else has any data please share.
>

I am very confused about the 1.25% number.  1280 bytes is about 80 AES
blocks, and one extra block is 1.25% on top of total *encryption* costs
(you don't have to MAC the PN, so that's even cheaper).  And the encryption
itself is fairly cheap compared to almost any other part of the QUIC stack
(sent packet tracking, ack processing, I/O, timers, etc).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email