Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My BoF report: multipath)

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Fri, 23 October 2020 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.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 A2A0D3A098E for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 INo9ONYU3Uip for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x632.google.com (mail-ej1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632]) (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 21F5F3A098D for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x632.google.com with SMTP id p9so4390967eji.4 for <quic@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
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=l3IBnF98YEs48HmXIJjbGjqa388s8iE3Cm/T4fXCJQA=; b=Y5w4G6wZmcsDj2TIQt4gm/UKU6KM023jCjfD9ST9qm3lrB1G8sIr/MlsNWnLzhKLc3 lyYI1+hGD78kyF4myQPiebjTSw8FUywfC7maxarNwr/uuOd6/J4pHZvHeQgeHINlRJqy J844mqHJQShv/3se4qgApJ4swgavOeRXtlVlfXqNncMMVOuHqdg9Ud5C6lGJeAzE3N7W cdF+/fOfzKSY7MVHrlfDqB/MKrtoeB18iaik8N1VnOgV+cS3O4Jtp/dmeiYeHK86L9Ds ocg6wjUQ+i/ztHr9uCVUFxoosyFzol/dhecRqDEuabf/ctu6LIdHlJEWtwv30OfyGDXn sSuQ==
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=l3IBnF98YEs48HmXIJjbGjqa388s8iE3Cm/T4fXCJQA=; b=b/QCWF5ozMk2eq0HEPoekMTb4VIUsv9Lff7fHRr+IUFm9l/RHLFoXUfrYNKyuE18v5 Qc5mCJAa6MSKSb86EusKnCG77ryv61jvVgvBvGR8T0mgd1JyrE8aFLrYra0/jq8+cDT/ QgFIV16ND5Sh3zv3Hn+oBbt5AGIWpJVZWJ5umDT7MVIj49fifEMQY69YSOOA5xH74Vkg Ij6K+gMDiSMOHJOuNPHzGZRNQg45EzVHOn6FWtrFbznR+wfnIMZfMfwHDbaIWNM3Dcnu 3BKbGdTHggYUUMdzpeI+R57PyL3Hh7guZh8u0OiX3iq8HtpkYPXxcXE/Vi4/lPT/W2L0 xX6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533znd+N9o3tmS4BNiqhgmXHap8+bUV+vhFacU7E7LaqEhHYmPeW WxIK/anKD/WOZ3ccsv6MbLACchoxzp8xAtSGf7H2QPRC
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx6dzk+U5RgyRVfEY2KZlDjUkncF7hS0d8ixLswQWA52ANL7gwcHFP5zG3Diizl4tKvyAZcITUrnDbClJLQkTo=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a119:: with SMTP id t25mr4371086ejy.67.1603490753587; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d84c82b1-fa67-4676-9ce2-d2a53d81b5f7@www.fastmail.com> <5741601d-7e67-898e-5840-70feceb994e9@uclouvain.be> <CALGR9oZW0s6c6+N+3R8bD17yPBPQa4E_cVOaTOSNTVQPYy6sUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8QAcditJ0nzdCNHOhi-1xtezoXb0u=hrGBWtZ3Cj3XP6CW4g@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oZfw5LqfPyZw6Yb8JTmuqi0prTL0f0yT9Rdq6oz5u51fg@mail.gmail.com> <ccbd3f9a-883e-6262-5735-2b9f25c6c6c4@zinks.de> <CALGR9oaw_-dbYSu5oN1Usvwr2h8wp-gvcmzx+0+2HJM-4Ac+4A@mail.gmail.com> <c09ff2f3-771b-11df-68f3-c690efa998c7@zinks.de>
In-Reply-To: <c09ff2f3-771b-11df-68f3-c690efa998c7@zinks.de>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:05:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oaCmV+fDY8C-08UHZxmOZNoUjhRErGkshynwXRuOAdFwg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Privacy considerations of multipath (Re: My BoF report: multipath)
To: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c4ac3905b25dc8f5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/FFiToo7mqQbUSLMaHK9pBWzwDgQ>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 23 Oct 2020 22:05:57 -0000

Hi Roland,

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:37 PM Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de> wrote:

> Hi Lucas,
>
>
> 1)  Just opening a second QUIC connection is not enough as it will most
> likely use the same path as the first. Some API to list interfaces and
> their properties is needed. Then the second second connection can be bound
> to the desired interface. If for example you want to check the available
> WiFi networks in Android then you need location permissions and the user
> needs to grant them and can revoke them anytime. In addition you need to
> write some legal text what you do with this data.
>
>
> 2) Is probably similar to 1) but may use some system library to do the job
> and hide it from the application itself.
>
>
> I can't speak for others but my expectation would be that some OS-level
> API should abstract network layer information when possible. Still and e2e
> solution will reveal the clients changing external IP addresses on the
> server side. A longer lived multipath connection may be used to track the
> user.
>

Thanks for your thoughts.

One of the touted benefits of QUIC is the ability to iterate and experiment
with more freedom. Requiring OS or platform APIs would seem to provide
friction to that. There might be some interesting questions about the
deployment reality for QUIC extensions that need such capabilities,
compared to QUIC extensions that can operate in their own bubble.

Cheers
Lucas

>
>