[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

Network Working Group                                        B. Williams
Internet-Draft                                              Akamai, Inc.
Intended status:  Experimental                              M. Boucadair
Expires:  April 27, 2015                                  France Telecom
                                                                 D. Wing
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                        October 24, 2014

            Experimental Option for TCP Host Identification


   Recent IETF proposals have identified benefits to more distinctly
   identifying the hosts that are hidden behind a shared address/prefix
   sharing device or application-layer proxy.  Analysis indicates that
   the use of a TCP option for this purpose can be successfully applied
   to a broad range of use cases.  This document describes a common
   experimental TCP option format for host identification.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

1.  Introduction

   A broad range of issues associated with address sharing have been
   well documented in [RFC6269] and
   [I-D.boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios].  In addition,
   [RFC6967] provides analysis of various solutions to the problem of
   revealing the sending host's identifier (HOST_ID) information to the
   receiver, indicating that a solution using a TCP [RFC0793] option for
   this purpose is among the possible approaches that could be applied
   with limited performance impact and a high success ratio.  The
   purpose of this document is to define such a TCP option in order to
   factilitate further validation of the mechanism.

   Multiple recent Internet Drafts define TCP options for the purpose of
   host identification:  [I-D.wing-nat-reveal-option],
   [I-D.abdo-hostid-tcpopt-implementation], and
   [I-D.williams-overlaypath-ip-tcp-rfc].  Specification of multiple
   option formats to serve the purpose of host identification increases
   the burden for potential implementers and presents interoperability
   challenges as well.  This document defines a common TCP option format
   that supersedes all three of the above proposals.

   The option defined in this document uses the TCP experimental option
   codepoint sharing mechanism defined in [RFC6994] and is intended to
   allow broad deployment of the mechanism on the public Internet in
   order to validate the utility of this option format for the intended
   use cases.

   Section 5 of this document discusses compatibility between this new
   TCP option and existing commonly deployed TCP options.

1.1.  Important Use Cases

   This memo focuses primarily on the carrier grade NAT (CGN),
   application proxy, and overlay network use cases described in
   [I-D.boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios].  This means that
   the option could either be applied to an individual TCP packet at the
   connection endpoint (e.g. an application proxy or a transport layer
   overlay network) or at an address-sharing middle box (e.g. a CGN or a
   network layer overlay network).  See Section 4 below for additional
   details about the types of devices that could add the option to a TCP
   packet, as well as limitations on use of the option when it is to be

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

   inserted by an address-sharing middlebox, including issues related to
   packet fragmentation.

   The receiver-side use cases considered by this memo include the

   o  Differentiating between attack and non-attack traffic when the
      source of the attack is sharing an address with non-attack

   o  Application of per-client policies for resource utilization, etc.
      when multiple clients are sharing a common address.

   o  Improving server-side load-balancing decisions by allowing the
      load for multiple clients behind a shared address to be assigned
      to different servers, even when session-affinity is required at
      the application layer.

   In all of the above cases, differentiation between address-sharing
   clients commonly needs to be performed by a network function that
   does not process the application layer protocol (e.g.  HTTP) or the
   sercurity protocol (e.g.  TLS), because the action needs to be
   performed prior to decryption or parsing the application layer.  Due
   to this, a solution implemented within the application layer or
   security protocol cannot fully meet the receiver-side requirements.
   At the same time, as noted in [RFC6967], use of an IP option for this
   purpose has a low success rate.  For these reasons, using a TCP
   option to deliver the host identifier has been selected as the most
   effective way to satisfy these specific use cases.

1.2.  Experiment Goals

   The extensive testing effort documented in
   [I-D.abdo-hostid-tcpopt-implementation] confirmed that a TCP option
   could be used for host identification purposes without significant
   disruption of TCP connectivity to legacy servers that do no support
   the option.  It also showed how mechanisms available in existing TCP
   implementations could make use of such a TCP option for improved
   diagnostics and/or packet filtering.

   Specification of the TCP option described in this memo will allow
   further experiments to be conducted in order to assess the viability
   of the option for the receiver-side use cases discussed above:

   o  Differentiate between attack and non-attack traffic.

   o  Enforce per-client policies.

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

   o  Assist load-balancing decision-making.

   In particular, real-world deployment of the option is expected to
   provide opportunities for engagement with a broader range of both
   application and middleware implementations in order to develop a more
   complete picture of how well the option meets the use-case

   In addition, continued experimentation on the open internet following
   publication of this memo is expected to allow further refinement of
   requirements related to the values used to populate the option and
   how those values can be interpretted by the receiver.  There is a
   tradeoff between providing the expected functionality to the receiver
   and protecting the privacy of the sender, and additional work is
   necessary in order to find the right balance.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3.  Option Format

   When used for host identification, the TCP experimental option uses
   the experiment identification mechanism described in [RFC6994] and
   has the following format and content.

    0          1          2          3
    01234567 89012345 67890123 45678901
   |  Kind  | Length |       ExID      |
   |  Host ID ...

   Kind:  The option kind value is 253

   Length:  The length of the option is variable, based on the required
      size of the host identifier (e.g. a 2 octet host ID will require a
      length of 6, while a 4 octet host ID will require a length of 8).

   ExID:  The experiment ID value is 0x0348 (840).

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

   Host ID:  The host identifier is an application dependent value with
      an interpretation agreed upon by the sender and the receiver.

   When multiple host identifiers are necessary (e.g. a list of IP
   addresses, an IP address and a port number), the HOST_ID option is
   included multiple times within the packet, once for each identifier.
   While this approach significantly increases option space utilization
   when multiple identifiers are included, cases where only a single
   identifier is included are more common and thus it is beneficial to
   optimize for those cases.

4.  Option Use

   This section describes requirements associated with the use of the
   option, including:  which hosts are allowed to include the option,
   expected option values, and segments that include the option.

4.1.  Sending Host Requirements

   The HOST_ID option MUST only be added by the sending host or any
   device involved in the forwarding path that changes IP addresses
   and/or TCP port numbers (e.g., NAT44 [RFC3022], Layer-2 Aware NAT,
   DS-Lite AFTR [RFC6333], NPTv6 [RFC6296], NAT64 [RFC6146], Dual-Stack
   Extra Lite [RFC6619], TCP Proxy, etc.).  The HOST_ID option MUST NOT
   be added or modified en-route by any device that does not modify IP
   addresses and/or TCP port numbers.

4.2.  Option Value Requirements

   The information conveyed in the HOST_ID option is intended to
   uniquely identify the sending host to the best capability of the
   machine that adds the option to the segment, while at the same time
   avoiding inclusion of information that does not assist this purpose.
   In addition, the option is not intended to be used to expose
   information about the sending host that could not be discovered by
   observing segments in transit on some portion of the internet path
   between the sender and the receiver.  As noted in Section 1.2,
   identifying the optimal set of values to use for this purpose is one
   of the experiment goals for this document.  For this reason, the
   document attempts to provide a high degree of flexibility for the
   machine that adds the option to TCP segments.

   The HOST_ID option value MUST correlate to IP addresses and/or TCP
   port numbers that were changed by the inserting host/device (i.e.,
   some of the IP address and /or port number bits are used to generate
   the HOST_ID).

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

   Intermediary devices (e.g. address sharing device) SHOULD be
   configurable to enable including the HOST_ID TCP option.  These
   devices MUST be configured with the type of information to populate
   the HOST_ID TCP option (e.g. certain bits of the source IPv6 address,
   the full source IPv6 address, certain bits of the source IPv4
   address, the full source IPv4 address, the source port number, etc.).

   The device MAY be configured to include multiple identifiers (e.g.
   both a source IP address and a source port number).  In such case,
   the device MUST insert two instances of the HOST_ID option, each of
   which contains the appropriate information.  Note, there is no need
   to signal the semantic of the included data as this specification
   assumes the service is aware of that information by out of band means
   (e.g. both the service and the address sharing device are managed by
   the same administrative entity).

   The device MUST be configured with the behavior to follow when a
   HOST_ID TCP option is already present in the segment:

   o  If the device is configured to strip any existing HOST_ID TCP
      option, it MUST remove all occurrences of the HOST_ID in a
      received TCP segment.

   o  If the device is configured to strip existing HOST_ID TCP options
      and insert a local HOST_ID TCP Option, it MUST remove all
      occurrences of the HOST_ID in a received TCP segment and then MUST
      include a local HOST_ID TCP option.  The device MAY be configured
      to use existing HOST_ID TCP options as differentiators when
      selecting the value to use in the local HOST_ID TCP option.

   o  The device MAY be configured to maintain any existing HOST_ID TCP
      option(s) in the received segments, the device MUST NOT remove
      those instances of the option.  Furthermore, it MUST add a new
      HOST_ID TCP option while preserving the order of appearance in the
      TCP option space.  In particular, the local HOST_ID TCP option
      MUST appear as the last occurrence of the HOST_ID TCP option in
      the segment.

         Note:  Because the order of appearance of TCP options could be
         modified by some middleboxes, deployments MUST NOT rely on
         option order to provide additional meaning to the individual
         options.  Instead, as indicated above, the full set of option
         values, with their lengths, MUST be treated as a single unified

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

4.3.  Segment Inclusion Requirements

   A sending host or intermediary device that is configured to include
   the HOST_ID option MUST include the option in SYN segments.

   The sending host or intermediary device cannot determine whether the
   option value is used in a stateful manner by the receiver, nor can it
   determine whether SYN cookies are in use by the receiver.  For this
   reason, the option MUST be included in all segments until return
   segments from the receiver positively indicate that the TCP
   connection is fully established on the receiver (e.g. the return
   segment either includes or acknowledges data).

4.3.1.  Alternative SYN Cookie Support

   The authors have also considered an alternative approach to SYN
   cookie support in which the receiving host (i.e. the host that
   accepts the TCP connection) to echo the option back to the sender in
   the SYN/ACK segment when a SYN cookie is being sent.  This would
   allow the sending host to determine whether further inclusion of the
   option is necessary.  This approach would have the benefit of not
   requiring inclusion of the option in non-SYN packets if SYN cookies
   had not been used.  Unfortunately, this approach fails if the sending
   host itself does not support the option, since an intermediate node
   would have no way to determine that SYN cookies had been used.

4.3.2.  Packet Fragmentation

   The option SHOULD NOT be included in packets if the resulting packet
   would require local fragmentation.

5.  Interaction with Other TCP Options

   This section details how the HOST_ID option functions in conjunction
   with other TCP options.

5.1.  Option Space

   TCP provides for a maximum of 40 octets for TCP options.  As
   discussed in Appendix A of Multipath TCP (MPTCP) [RFC6824], a typical
   SYN from modern, popular operating systems contain several TCP
   options (MSS, window scale, SACK permitted, and timestamp) which
   consume 19-24 octets depending on word alignment of the options.  The
   initial SYN from a multipath TCP client would consume an additional
   16 octets.

   HOST_ID needs at least 6 octets to be useful, so 9-21 octets are

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

   sufficient for many scenarios that benefit from HOST_ID.  However, 4
   octets are not enough space for the HOST_ID option.  Thus, a TCP SYN
   containing all the typical TCP options (MSS, window Scale, SACK
   permitted, timestamp), and also containing multipath capable or
   multipath join, and also being word aligned, has insufficient space
   to also accommodate HOST_ID.  This means something has to give.  The
   choices are to avoid word alignment in that case (freeing 5 octets),
   remove a TCP option from the original TCP SYN, or avoid adding the
   HOST_ID option.  We expect to learn from deployment experience during
   the experiment which of these options, or a combination of these
   options, is best.

5.2.  Authentication Option (TCP-AO)

   The TCP-AO option [RFC5925] supports a "TCP option flag" to indicate
   whether TCP options other than TCP-AO are included in the MAC
   calculation (Section 3.1 of [RFC5925]).  When the options are not
   included in the MAC calculation, the use of HOST_ID option does not
   interfere with TCP-AO option.  However, because TCP-AO provides
   integrity protection of the source IP address, TCP-AO is broken in
   the presence of NAT.

   Because TCP-AO is incompatible with address sharing, an experimental
   extension to TCP-AO (called TCP-AO-NAT) is introduced in [RFC6978].
   Injecting a HOST_ID TCP option does not interfere with the use of
   TCP-AO-NAT because the TCP options are not included in the MAC

6.  Security Considerations

   Security (including privacy) considerations common to all HOST_ID
   solutions are discussed in [RFC6967].

   The content of the HOST_ID option MUST NOT be used for purposes that
   require a trust relationship between the sender and the receiver
   (e.g. billing and/or intrusion prevention) unless a mechanism outside
   the scope of this specification is used to ensure the necessary level
   of trust.

   When the receiving network uses the values provided by the option in
   a way that does not require trust (e.g. maintaining session affinity
   in a load-balancing system), then use of a mechanism to enforce the
   trust relationship is OPTIONAL.

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

7.  Privacy Considerations

   Sending a TCP SYN across the public Internet necessarily discloses
   the public IP address of the sending host.  When an intermediate
   address sharing device is deployed on the public Internet (see
   [I-D.boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios] for examples),
   anonymity of the hosts using the device will be increased, with hosts
   represented by multiple source IP addresses on the ingress side of
   the device using a single source IP address on the egress side.  The
   HOST_ID TCP option removes that increased anonymity, taking
   information that was already visible in TCP packets on the public
   Internet on the ingress side of the address sharing device and making
   it available on the egress side of the device as well.  In some
   cases, an explicit purpose of the address sharing device is
   anonymity, in which case use of the HOST_ID TCP option would be
   incompatible with the purpose of the device.

   The HOST_ID option MUST NOT be used to provide client geographic or
   network location information that was not publicly visible in IP
   packets for the TCP flows processed by the inserting host.  For
   example, the client's IP address MAY be used as the HOST_ID option
   value, but any geographic or network location information derived
   from the client's IP address MUST NOT be used as the HOST_ID value.

   The HOST_ID option MAY provide differentiating information that is
   locally unique such that individual TCP flows processed by the
   inserting host can be reliably identified.  The HOST_ID option MUST
   NOT provide client identification information that was not publicly
   visible in IP packets for the TCP flows processed by the inserting

   The HOST_ID option MUST be stripped from IP packets traversing middle
   boxes that provide network-based anonymity services.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document specifies a new TCP option that uses the shared
   experimental options format [RFC6994], with ExID=0x0348 (840) in
   network-standard byte order.  This ExID has already been registered
   with IANA.

9.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to J. Touch, M. Scharf, W. Eddy, T. Reddy, and Y. Nishida
   for their comments.

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

10.2.  Informative References

              Abdo, E., Boucadair, M., and J. Queiroz, "HOST_ID TCP
              Options: Implementation & Preliminary Test Results",
              draft-abdo-hostid-tcpopt-implementation-03 (work in
              progress), July 2012.

              Boucadair, M., Binet, D., Durel, S., Chatras, B., Reddy,
              T., Williams, B., Sarikaya, B., Xue, L., and R. Wheeldon,
              "Scenarios with Host Identification Complications",
              draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-07 (work
              in progress), July 2014.

              Williams, B., "Overlay Path Option for IP and TCP",
              draft-williams-overlaypath-ip-tcp-rfc-04 (work in
              progress), June 2013.

              Yourtchenko, A. and D. Wing, "Revealing hosts sharing an
              IP address using TCP option",
              draft-wing-nat-reveal-option-03 (work in progress),
              December 2011.

   [RFC3022]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
              Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
              January 2001.

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.

   [RFC6269]  Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

              Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
              June 2011.

   [RFC6296]  Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
              Translation", RFC 6296, June 2011.

   [RFC6333]  Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
              Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
              Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.

   [RFC6619]  Arkko, J., Eggert, L., and M. Townsley, "Scalable
              Operation of Address Translators with Per-Interface
              Bindings", RFC 6619, June 2012.

   [RFC6824]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
              "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
              Addresses", RFC 6824, January 2013.

   [RFC6967]  Boucadair, M., Touch, J., Levis, P., and R. Penno,
              "Analysis of Potential Solutions for Revealing a Host
              Identifier (HOST_ID) in Shared Address Deployments",
              RFC 6967, June 2013.

   [RFC6978]  Touch, J., "A TCP Authentication Option Extension for NAT
              Traversal", RFC 6978, July 2013.

   [RFC6994]  Touch, J., "Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options",
              RFC 6994, August 2013.

Appendix A.  Change History

   [Note to RFC Editor:  Please remove this section prior to

A.1.  Changes from version 03 to 04

   Improve discussion of RFC6967.

   Don't use "message" to describe TCP segments.

   Add reference to RFC6994 to section 3.

   Clarify that this draft superseeds earlier drafts.

   Improve discussion of SYN cookie handling.

   Remove lower case uses of keywords (e.g. must, should, etc.)

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

   throughout the document.

   Some stronger privacy guidance, replacing SHOULD with MUST.

   Add an experiment goal related to optimal option value.

   Add text related to the identification goals of the option value
   (still needs more work).

A.2.  Changes from version 02 to 03

   Clarification of arguments in favor of this approach.

   Add discussion of important use cases.

   Clarification of experiment goals and earlier test results.

A.3.  Changes from version 01 to 02

   Add note re:  order of appearance.

A.4.  Changes from version 00 to 01

   Add discussion of experiment goals.

   Limit external references to the earlier drafts.

   Add guidance to limit the types of device that add the option.

   Improve/correct discussion of TCP-AO and security.

Appendix B.  Open Issues

   [Note to RFC Editor:  Please remove this section prior to

   Add discussion of non-local fragmentation.

   Evaluate the reliability of attempts to exclude the option when local
   fragmentation would be required.

   Clarify exactly what the identifier is identifying.

   Improve discussion on interpretation of multiple instances of the
   option, including order of interpretation and set interpretation.

   Evaluate whether use of multiple identifiers should be constrained.

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

   Discuss the possibility of the option value changing over the life of
   the connection.

   Clarify use cases related to stripping and replacing the option.

   Make this draft self-contained, rather than referring readers to use-
   cases and requirements contained in other I.D.s that were never
   published as RFCs.

   Add discussion of TCP Fast Open.

   Add experiment goal related to identifying methods for receiver-side
   use of data conveyed in the option.

   Re-evaluate all use of MUST, MAY, SHOULD thoughout the document.

   Clarify use of SHOULD rather than MUST where possible, or perhaps

   Correct some discussion of TCP-AO and TCP-AO-NAT.

   Clarify the security requirements re:  trust relationship.

   Clarify privacy considerations regarding NATs that separate private
   and public networks.

   Remove restatement of requirements from other documents.

Authors' Addresses

   Brandon Williams
   Akamai, Inc.
   8 Cambridge Center
   Cambridge, MA  02142

   Email:  brandon.williams@akamai.com

   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes, 35000

   Email:  mohamed.boucadair@orange.com

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       Experimental TCP Host ID Option        October 2014

   Dan Wing
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134

   Email:  dwing@cisco.com

Williams, et al.         Expires April 27, 2015                [Page 14]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/