Re: Packet number encryption negotiation

Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> Wed, 08 March 2023 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ianswett@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 D1990C15270B for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 14:03:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -22.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fXuTZ7RfwRwZ for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 14:03:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb32.google.com (mail-yb1-xb32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b32]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 83735C153CBB for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2023 14:03:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb32.google.com with SMTP id n18so79457ybm.10 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Mar 2023 14:03:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; t=1678313011; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eNdxC0YC5BQNVGunHaL3byxjFcw9Zck7yGPRrde2lZo=; b=oOq9E7JbZFRGKDd5vdwREAqynJ7EP+afb3HzcTftJzf1uqR807e9sU/L2nHfLaovWE 89NwKWxKZdbtdTVaDlAyhoCcmUPbBHU7h0hAhvuLl8x3x7ZslKca3eAKgEece4KexDbk J6risOEIbQFjGtIic4rvDDPOj7hjwznH3tNMbFYTJXTjqNEhvCxhv8mtyMpx60X6ejCV mxrAFh9+9Gq8Jt6YM2myMQ0HiIl3/0ZrjvV7iGBAIadYullD1nARwbv55Sh33Vqs9+66 +peD1gugDMf86d0E342tD5UTqYKgipPGtqFOQGx7es0+V5mDHcjTkohPHYhcWBAQoTJo 2utA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678313011; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=eNdxC0YC5BQNVGunHaL3byxjFcw9Zck7yGPRrde2lZo=; b=fg7KVhODnAAsoM5P8Z96oIAw17MVpFD4wvYXPK9+y19ITEgf0SKZXCL5vPSq2hkCk5 bLvsQtvrHd5S1zd6ddMf+r/SAhmzUaWdMkL9gto8mcXEqm9F1fwpcMQXUVAIvofxWHwP bWO5TU5A+iubPAetkH+QohKMCYOCK+437mG79TrCGiS7rZCkG4NoJzbwvDgPomj6AlPh SUpj25R93Z4YYEuEamT4dIlqcdiMeHrBZ7elQBbnfWSYV7KnfaOhhoYXHtSybXlKuWz3 vflWD/GLiwepV7Traf188ssIxR8Xk2WLjf/N9VuOsrHP7BW0mYu7e6zADFIPnHB22SQZ Wo+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUkHYPIHQUuG2PkPDpVITk35CQsBQUOSSvLlgGIgAVw2YgMhx0l LDToNHaP6EXmrbKkB3RgytwtHXRSgjkaYw7hC5DXQLyoll7X8VmZUcg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set89LNE1CZMcSO8hMk0ud5k9Tj2OIUBbVl3VjhX/1zKgkrds5+1vDETN+0h82xJQeZ5gIM5CvZenyGmUwUKxvfA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:524:b0:a4e:4575:f3f0 with SMTP id y4-20020a056902052400b00a4e4575f3f0mr9508393ybs.11.1678313011433; Wed, 08 Mar 2023 14:03:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKJMo+ttNyyTOhKg99k9HEgFCCZfR-yY_GeQ-ot6_09U1T3LPw@mail.gmail.com> <2b54d5c1-e094-d128-5c37-88ed63a0a0d8@ericsson.com> <CAKJMo+u=OZtNAmwYhSOXnrxNKTFFfup6k_W14=sos00gvqeP6g@mail.gmail.com> <b53ca341-2ff7-c5f9-758e-cc94fba923d7@ericsson.com> <CAKJMo+vi9GHCA4eVV5tT3fa5WnAUeFgyQZaGujZ172t6s0beVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKJMo+vi9GHCA4eVV5tT3fa5WnAUeFgyQZaGujZ172t6s0beVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 17:02:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKcm_gO97aTkfw_2UMCq_gm797vd1Mhg3r7r_-0ca9awu_2g4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Packet number encryption negotiation
To: Boris Pismenny <borispismenny@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Eriksson <michael.eriksson@ericsson.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000df08b405f66ab23f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/rrt6gW9svBOtGO2NYpk6RpLQ8ho>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 22:03:36 -0000

Speaking as an individual, I would like to see this discussed more in the
QUIC WG, possibly in Yokohama.

Header Protection/PNE definitely helps with ossification, but when compared
with highly optimized and sometimes non-standard networking protocols, QUIC
without PNE is a huge improvement.  In a datacenter environment,
ossification is a concern, but it's rarely due to the wire image.

Ian

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 8:02 AM Boris Pismenny <borispismenny@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>>
>>> What I want to add is that you should consider multipath QUIC when you
>>> design your hardware. It affects the AEAD nonce generation.
>>>
>>> Regular, unipath, QUIC sets the top 34 bits of the packet number to zero
>>> when generating the nonce. In the upcoming multipath extension, the top 32
>>> bits can be set to non-zero values.
>>>
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9001.html#name-aead-usage
>>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-quic-multipath-03.html#name-packet-protection-for-quic
>>> -
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the pointers, I've encountered multi-path QUIC on another
>> discussion about QUIC offload (
>> https://github.com/microsoft/quic-offloads/issues/9#issuecomment-1305823308
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-88d69ea0099e1120&q=1&e=e27b5977-1b4e-4703-957b-3236511a2976&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmicrosoft%2Fquic-offloads%2Fissues%2F9%23issuecomment-1305823308>).
>> IIUC, the main challenge with multipath will be to synchronize receive side
>> NIC offloads when two NICs are being used in parallel to carry the same
>> flow's packet number space.
>>
>>
>> There will only be separate packet number spaces for each path in the
>> upcoming version of the multipath draft. Then I guess you will not have the
>> problem you mention above. If you still would, why is this not a problem
>> with regular unipath QUIC?
>>
>>
> Indeed, this can also happen with unipath QUIC. In both cases, it is
> probably not the common case. But, if it does happen, it will make
> offloading more challenging.
>