Tunneling Internet protocols inside QUIC
draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-01

QUIC Working Group                                             M. Piraux
Internet-Draft                                            O. Bonaventure
Intended status: Experimental                                  UCLouvain
Expires: September 10, 2020                               March 09, 2020

                Tunneling Internet protocols inside QUIC
                      draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-01

Abstract

   This document specifies methods for tunneling Ethernet frames and
   Internet protocols such as TCP, UDP, IP and QUIC inside a QUIC
   connection.

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 https://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 September 10, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://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
   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.

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Reference environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  The datagram mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Connection establishment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Joining a tunneling session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Messages format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  QUIC tunnel control TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       7.1.1.  New Session TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       7.1.2.  Session ID TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       7.1.3.  Join Session TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.2.  Ingress Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  Registration of QUIC tunnel Identification String . . . .  11
     9.2.  QUIC tunnel control TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       9.2.1.  QUIC tunnel control TLVs Types  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.3.  QUIC tunnel control Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     A.1.  Since draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-00 . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   Mobile devices such as laptops, smartphones or tablets have different
   requirements than the traditional fixed devices.  These mobile
   devices often change their network attachment.  They are often
   attached to trusted networks, but sometimes they need to be connected
   to untrusted networks where their communications can be eavesdropped,
   filtered or modified.  In these situations, the classical approach is
   to rely on VPN protocols such as DTLS or IPSec.  These VPN protocols
   provide the encryption and authentication functions to protect those
   mobile clients from malicious behaviors in untrusted networks.

   However, some networks have deployed filters that block these VPN
   protocols.  When faced with such filters, users can either switch off
   their connection or find alternatives, e.g. by using TLS to access
   some services over TCP port 443.  The planned deployment of QUIC
   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] [I-D.ietf-quic-tls] opens a new opportunity
   for such users.  Since QUIC will be used to access web sites, it
   should be less affected by filters than VPN solutions such as IPSec

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

   or DTLS.  Furthermore, the flexibility of QUIC makes it possible to
   easily extend the protocol to support VPN services.

   This document shares some goals with the MASQUE framework
   [I-D.schinazi-masque].  The proposed QUIC tunnel protocol contributes
   to the effort of defining a signaling for conveying multiple proxied
   flows inside a QUIC connection.  While this document specifies its
   own protocol, further work could adapt the mechanisms presented in
   this proposal to use HTTP/3.

   On the other hand, today's mobile devices are often multihomed and
   many expect to be able to perform seamless handovers from one access
   network to another without breaking the established VPN sessions.  In
   some situations it can also be beneficial to combine two or more
   access networks together to increase the available host bandwidth.  A
   protocol such as Multipath TCP [RFC6824] supports those handovers and
   allows aggregating the bandwidth of different access links.  It could
   be combined with single-path VPN protocols to support both seamless
   handovers and bandwidth aggregation above VPN tunnels.
   Unfortunately, Multipath TCP is not yet deployed on most Internet
   servers and thus few applications would benefit from such a use case.

   In this document, we explore how QUIC could be used to enable multi-
   homed mobile devices to communicate securely in untrusted networks.
   The QUIC protocol opens up a new way to find a clean solution to this
   problem.  First, QUIC includes the same encryption and authentication
   techniques as deployed VPN protocols.  Second, QUIC is intended to be
   widely used to support web-based services, making it unlikely to be
   filtered in many networks, in contrast with VPN protocols.  Third,
   the QUIC migration mechanism enables handovers between several
   network interfaces.

   This document is organized as follows.  Section 3 describes our
   reference environment.  Then, we propose a first mode of operation,
   explained in Section 4, that uses the recently proposed datagram
   extension ([I-D.pauly-quic-datagram]) for QUIC to transport plain IP
   packets over a QUIC connection.  Section 5 specifies how a connection
   is established in this document proposal.  Section 7 details the
   format of the messages introduced by this document.

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

3.  Reference environment

   Our first scenario is a client that uses a QUIC tunnel to send all
   its packets to a concentrator.  The concentrator decrypts the packets
   received over the QUIC connection and forwards them to their final
   destination.  It also receives the packets destined to the client and
   tunnels them through the QUIC connection.

                                                         +-------------+
  +--------+              +--------------+               | Final       |
  | Client |              | Concentrator |<===\ ... \===>| destination |
  +--------+              +--------------+               | server      |
         ^    +---------+    ^                           +-------------+
         |    | Access  |    |
         |    | network |    |            Legend:
         .----|         |----.              --- QUIC connection
              +---------+                   === TCP/UDP flow

               Figure 1: A client attached to a concentrator

   However, there are several situations where the client is attached to
   two or more access networks.  This client can be multihomed, dual-
   stack, ... This is illustrated in Figure 2, in which a client-
   initiated flow is tunneled through the concentrator.  We also discuss
   inbound connections in this document in Section 5.

              +---------+
         .----| Access  |----.
         |    | network |    |
         |    |    A    |    |
         v    +----------    v                           +-------------+
  +--------+              +--------------+               | Final       |
  | Client |              | Concentrator |<===\ ... \===>| destination |
  +--------+              +--------------+               | server      |
         ^    +---------+    ^                           +-------------+
         |    | Access  |    |
         |    | network |    |            Legend:
         .----|    B    |----.              --- QUIC connection
              +---------+                   === TCP/UDP flow

                       Figure 2: Example environment

   Such a client would like to benefit from the different access
   networks available to reach the concentrator.  These access networks
   can be used for load-sharing, failover or other purposes.  One
   possibility to efficiently use these two access networks is to rely
   on the proposed Multipath extensions to QUIC
   [I-D.deconinck-quic-multipath].  Another approach is to create one

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

   QUIC connection using the single-path QUIC protocol
   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] over each access network and glue these
   different sessions together on the concentrator.  Given the migration
   capabilities of QUIC, this approach could support failover with a
   single active QUIC connection at a time.

   In a nutshell, the solution proposed in this document works as
   follows.  The client opens a QUIC connection to a concentrator.  The
   concentrator authenticates the client through means that are outside
   the scope of this document such as client certificates, usernames/
   passwords, OAuth, ... If the authentication succeeds, the client can
   use the tunnel to exchange Ethernet frames or IP packets with the
   concentrator over the QUIC session.  If the client uses IP, then the
   concentrator can allocate an IP address to the client at the end of
   the authentication phase.  The client can then send packets via the
   concentrator by tunneling them through the concentrator.  The
   concentrator captures the IP packets destined to the client and
   tunnels them over the QUIC connection.

   If the client is multihomed, it can use Multipath QUIC
   [I-D.deconinck-quic-multipath] to efficiently use its different
   access networks.  This version of the document does not elaborate in
   details on this possibility.  If the concentrator does not support
   Multipath QUIC, then the client creates several QUIC connections and
   joins them at the application layer.  This works as illustrated in
   figure Figure 3.  Each message is exchanged over a dedicated
   unidirectional QUIC stream.  Their format is detailed in Section 7.
   When the client opens the first QUIC connection with the
   concentrator, (1) it can request a QUIC tunnel session identifier.
   (2) The concentrator replies with a variable-length opaque value that
   identifies the QUIC tunneling session.  When opening a QUIC
   connection over another access network, (3) the client can send this
   identifier to join the QUIC tunneling session.  The concentrator
   matches the session identifier with the existing session with the
   client.  It can then use both sessions to reach the client and
   received tunneled packets from the client.

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

           1-Req. Sess. ID->
          .-----------------------------.
          |               <-Sess. ID.-2 |
          v                             v
   +--------+                        +--------------+
   | Client |                        | Concentrator |
   +--------+                        +--------------+
          ^                             ^
          | 3-Join. Sess.->             |      Legend:
          .-----------------------------.        --- QUIC connection

        Figure 3: Creating sessions over different access networks

4.  The datagram mode

   Our first mode of operation, called the datagram mode in this
   document, enables the client and the concentrator to exchange raw
   packets through the QUIC connection.  This is done by using the
   recently proposed QUIC datagram extension [I-D.pauly-quic-datagram].
   In a nutshell, to send a packet to a remote host, the client simply
   passes the entire packet as a datagram to the QUIC connection
   established with the concentrator.

   This document specifies the following format for encoding packets in
   QUIC DATAGRAM frame.  It allows encoding packets from several
   protocols by identifying the corresponding protocol of the packet in
   each QUIC DATAGRAM frame.  Figure 4 describes this encoding.

                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       Protocol Type (16)      |        Packet Tag (16)        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Packet (*)                        ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 4: Encoding packets in QUIC DATAGRAM frame

   This encoding defines three fields.

   o  Protocol Type: The Protocol Type field contains the protocol type
      of the payload packet.  The values for the different protocols are
      defined as "ETHER TYPES" in [IANA-ETHER-TYPES].  A QUIC tunnel
      that receives a Protocol Type representing an unsupported protocol
      that is not supported MAY drop the associated Packet.  QUIC tunnel
      endpoints willing to exchange Ethernet frames can use the value
      0x6558 for [Transparent-Ethernet-Bridging].

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

   o  Packet Tag: An opaque 16-bit value.  The QUIC tunnel application
      is free to decide its semantic value.  For instance, a QUIC tunnel
      endpoint MAY encode the sending order of packets in the Packet
      Tag, e.g. as a timestamp or a sequence number, to allow reordering
      on the receiver.

   o  Packet: The packet conveyed inside the QUIC tunnel connection.

   This encoding is sent inside a QUIC DATAGRAM frame, which is then
   encrypted and authenticated in a QUIC packet.  This transmission is
   subject to congestion control, but the frame that contains the packet
   is not retransmitted in case of losses as specified in
   [I-D.pauly-quic-datagram].  The datagram mode is intended to provide
   a similar service as the one provided by IPSec tunnels or DTLS.

                ,->+----------+
                |  |    IP    |
    QUIC packet |  +----------+
    containing  |  |    UDP   |
    a DATAGRAM  |  +----------+
    frame       |  |   QUIC   |
                |  |..........|
                |  | DATAGRAM |
                |  |  P. Type |
                |  |  P. Tag  |
                |  |+--------+|<-.
                |  ||   IP   ||  |
                |  |+--------+|  | Tunneled
                |  ||   UDP  ||  | UDP packet
                |  |+--------+|  |
                |  |   ....   |<-.
                `->+----------+

   Figure 5: QUIC packet sent by the client when tunneling a UDP packet

   Figure 5 illustrates how a UDP packet is tunneled using the datagram
   mode.  The main advantage of the datagram mode is that it supports IP
   and any protocol above the network layer.  Any IP packet can be
   transported using the datagram extension over a QUIC connection.
   However, this advantage comes with a large per-packet overhead since
   each packet contains both a network and a transport header.  All
   these headers must be transmitted in addition with the IP/UDP/QUIC
   headers of the QUIC connection.  For TCP connections for instance,
   the per-packet overhead can be large.

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

5.  Connection establishment

   During connection establishment, the QUIC tunnel support is indicated
   by setting the ALPN token "qt" in the TLS handshake.  Draft-version
   implementations MAY specify a particular draft version by suffixing
   the token, e.g. "qt-00" refers to the first version of this document.

   After the QUIC connection is established, the client can start using
   the datagram or the stream mode.  The client may use PCP [RFC6887] to
   request the concentrator to accept inbound connections on their
   behalf.  After the negotiation of such port mappings, the
   concentrator can start sending packets containing inbound connections
   in QUIC DATAGRAM frame.

6.  Joining a tunneling session

   Joining a tunneling session allows grouping several QUIC connections
   to the concentrator.  Each endpoint can then coordinate the use of
   the Packet Tag across the tunneling session.  The messages used for
   this purpose are described in Section 7.  A dedicated unidirectional
   stream is used to convey these messages and establish the negotiation
   of a tunneling session.  This negotiation MUST NOT take place more
   than once per QUIC connection.

7.  Messages format

   In the following sections, we specify the format of each message
   introduced in this document.  They are encoded as TLVs, i.e. (Type,
   Length, Value) tuples, as illustrated in Figure 6.  All TLV fields
   are encoded in network-byte order.

                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type (8)   |   Length (8)  |          [Value (*)]        ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 6: QUIC tunnel TLV Format

   The Type field is encoded as a byte and identifies the type of the
   TLV.  The Length field is encoded as a byte and indicate the length
   of the Value field.  A value of zero indicates that no Value field is
   present.  The Value field is a type-specific value whose length is
   determined by the Length field.

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

7.1.  QUIC tunnel control TLVs

   In order to negotiate the tunneling session used with the
   concentrator, the client and the concentrator open their first
   unidirectional stream (i.e. stream 2 and 3), named QUIC tunnel
   control stream.  The client MAY either start a new session or join an
   existing session.

   This document specifies the following QUIC tunnel control TLVs:

   +------+----------+--------------+------------------+
   | Type |     Size |       Sender | Name             |
   +------+----------+--------------+------------------+
   | 0x00 |  2 bytes |       Client | New Session TLV  |
   | 0x01 | Variable | Concentrator | Session ID TLV   |
   | 0x02 | Variable |       Client | Join Session TLV |
   +------+----------+--------------+------------------+

                    Figure 7: QUIC tunnel control TLVs

   The New Session TLV is used by the client to initiate a new tunneling
   session.  The Session ID TLV is used by the concentrator to
   communicate to the client the Session ID identifying this tunneling
   session.  The Join Session TLV is used to join a given tunneling
   session, identified by a Session ID.  All QUIC tunnel control TLVs
   MUST NOT be sent on other streams than the QUIC tunnel control
   streams.

7.1.1.  New Session TLV

   The New Session TLV does not contain a value.  It initiates a new
   tunneling session at the concentrator.  The concentrator MUST send a
   Session ID TLV in response, with the Session ID corresponding to the
   tunneling session created.  After sending a New Session TLV, the
   client MUST close the QUIC tunnel control stream.

   The concentrator MUST NOT send New Session TLVs.

7.1.2.  Session ID TLV

                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type (8)   |   Length (8)  |        Session ID (*)       ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 8: Session ID TLV

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

   The Session ID TLV contains an opaque value that identifies the
   current tunneling session.  It can be used by the client in
   subsequent QUIC connections to join them to this tunneling session.
   The concentrator MUST send a Session ID TLV in response of a New
   Session TLV, with the Session ID corresponding to the tunneling
   session created.

   The client MUST NOT send a Session ID TLV.  The concentrator MUST
   close the QUIC tunnel control stream after sending a Session ID TLV.

7.1.3.  Join Session TLV

                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type (8)   |   Length (8)  |        Session ID (*)       ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                        Figure 9: Join Session TLV

   The Join Session TLV contains an opaque value that identifies a
   tunneling session to join.  The client can send a Join Session TLV to
   join the QUIC connection to a particular tunneling session.  The
   tunneling session is identified by the Session ID.  After sending a
   Join Session TLV, the client MUST close the QUIC tunnel control
   stream.

   The concentrator MUST NOT send Join Session TLVs.  After receiving a
   Join Session TLV, the concentrator MUST use the Session ID to join
   this QUIC connection to the tunneling session.  Joining the tunneling
   session implies merging the state of this QUIC tunnel connection to
   the session.  A successful joining of connection is indicated by the
   closure of the QUIC tunnel control stream of the concentrator.

   In cases of failure when joining a tunneling session, the
   concentrator MUST send a RESET_STREAM with an application error code
   discerning the cause of the failure.  The possible codes are listed
   below:

   o  UNKNOWN_ERROR (0x0): An unknown error occurred when joining the
      tunneling session.  QUIC tunnel peers SHOULD use more specific
      error codes when applicable.

   o  UNKNOWN_SESSION_ID (0x1): The Session ID used in the Join Session
      TLV is not a valid ID.  It was not issued in a Session ID TLV or
      refers to an expired tunneling session.

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

   o  CONFLICTING_STATE (0x2): The current state of the QUIC tunnel
      connection could not be merged with the tunneling session.

8.  Security Considerations

8.1.  Privacy

   The Concentrator has access to all the packets it processes.  It MUST
   be protected as a core IP router, e.g. as specified in [RFC1812].

8.2.  Ingress Filtering

   Ingress filtering policies MUST be enforced at the network
   boundaries, i.e. as specified in [RFC2827].

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  Registration of QUIC tunnel Identification String

   This document creates a new registration for the identification of
   the QUIC tunnel protocol in the "Application Layer Protocol
   Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs" registry established in [RFC7301].

   The "qt" string identifies the QUIC tunnel protocol.

   Protocol: QUIC tunnel

   Identification Sequence: 0x71 0x74 ("qt")

   Specification: This document

9.2.  QUIC tunnel control TLVs

   IANA is requested to create a new "QUIC tunnel control Parameters"
   registry.

   The following subsections detail new registries within "QUIC tunnel
   control Parameters" registry.

9.2.1.  QUIC tunnel control TLVs Types

   IANA is request to create the "QUIC tunnel control TLVs Types" sub-
   registry.  New values are assigned via IETF Review (Section 4.8 of
   [RFC8126]).

   The initial values to be assigned at the creation of the registry are
   as follows:

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

   +------+-----------------------+------------+
   | Code | Name                  | Reference  |
   +------+-----------------------+------------+
   |    0 | New Session TLV       | [This-Doc] |
   |    1 | Session ID TLV        | [This-Doc] |
   |    2 | Join Session TLV      | [This-Doc] |
   +------+-----------------------+------------+

9.3.  QUIC tunnel control Error Codes

   This document establishes a registry for QUIC tunnel control stream
   error codes.  The "QUIC tunnel control Error Code" registry manages a
   62-bit space.  New values are assigned via IETF Review (Section 4.8
   of [RFC8126]).

   The initial values to be assigned at the creation of the registry are
   as follows:

   +------+-----------------------+------------+
   | Code | Name                  | Reference  |
   +------+-----------------------+------------+
   |    0 | UNKNOWN_ERROR         | [This-Doc] |
   |    1 | UNKNOWN_SESSION_ID    | [This-Doc] |
   |    2 | CONFLICTING_STATE     | [This-Doc] |
   +------+-----------------------+------------+

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1701]  Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic
              Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 1701,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1701, October 1994,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1701>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.deconinck-quic-multipath]
              Coninck, Q. and O. Bonaventure, "Multipath Extensions for
              QUIC (MP-QUIC)", draft-deconinck-quic-multipath-04 (work
              in progress), March 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-quic-tls]
              Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using TLS to Secure QUIC",
              draft-ietf-quic-tls-27 (work in progress), February 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
              Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
              and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-27 (work
              in progress), February 2020.

   [I-D.pauly-quic-datagram]
              Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable
              Datagram Extension to QUIC", draft-pauly-quic-datagram-05
              (work in progress), November 2019.

   [I-D.schinazi-masque]
              Schinazi, D., "The MASQUE Protocol", draft-schinazi-
              masque-02 (work in progress), January 2020.

   [IANA-ETHER-TYPES]
              "IANA ETHER TYPES", https://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-
              802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.txt , n.d..

   [RFC1812]  Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
              RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.

   [RFC2827]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
              Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
              Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
              May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.

   [RFC6824]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
              "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
              Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6824>.

   [RFC6887]  Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
              P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

   [RFC7301]  Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
              Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
              July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [Transparent-Ethernet-Bridging]
              Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic
              Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 1701,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1701, October 1994,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1701>.

Appendix A.  Change Log

A.1.  Since draft-piraux-quic-tunnel-00

   o  Separate the document in two and put the stream mode in another
      document

   o  Remove TCP Extended TLV

   o  Add a mechanism for joining QUIC connections in a QUIC tunneling
      session

   o  Add a format for encoding any network-layer protocol packets and
      Ethernet frames in QUIC DATAGRAM frames

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Quentin De Coninck and Francois Michel for their comments
   and the proofreading of the first version of this document.  Thanks
   to Gregory Vander Schueren for his comments on the first version of
   this document.

Authors' Addresses

   Maxime Piraux
   UCLouvain

   Email: maxime.piraux@uclouvain.be

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                 QUIC Tunnel                    March 2020

   Olivier Bonaventure
   UCLouvain

   Email: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be

Piraux & Bonaventure   Expires September 10, 2020              [Page 15]