TSVWG A. Ferrieux
Internet-Draft I. Hamchaoui
Intended status: Informational Orange Labs
Expires: January 21, 2020 I. Lubashev
Akamai Technologies
July 20, 2019
Packet Loss Signaling for Encrypted Protocols
draft-ferrieuxhamchaoui-tsvwg-lossbits-01
Abstract
This document describes a protocol-independent method that employs
two bits to allow endpoints to signal packet loss in a way that can
be used by network devices to measure and locate the source of the
loss. The signaling method applies to all protocols with a protocol-
specific way to identify packet loss. The method is especially
valuable when applied to protocols that encrypt transport header and
do not allow an alternative method for loss detection.
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 January 21, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
Ferrieux, et al. Expires January 21, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft loss-bits July 2019
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Loss Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Setting the sQuare Bit on Outgoing Packets . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Setting the Loss Event Bit on Outgoing Packets . . . . . 4
4. Using the Loss Bits for Passive Loss Measurement . . . . . . 4
4.1. End-To-End Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Upstream Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Correlating End-to-End and Upstream Loss . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. Downstream Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. Observer Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Ossification Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Since version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
Packet loss is a pervasive problem of day-to-day network operation,
and proactively detecting, measuring, and locating it is crucial to
maintaining high QoS and timely resolution of crippling end-to-end
throughput issues. To this effect, in a TCP-dominated world, network
operators have been heavily relying on information present in the
clear in TCP headers: sequence and acknowledgment numbers and SACKs
when enabled (see [RFC8517]). These allow for quantitative
estimation of packet loss by passive on-path observation, and the
lossy segment (upstream or downstream from the observation point) can
be quickly identified by moving the passive observer around.
With encrypted protocols, the equivalent transport headers are
encrypted and passive packet loss observation is not possible, as
described in [TRANSPORT-ENCRYPT].
Ferrieux, et al. Expires January 21, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft loss-bits July 2019
Since encrypted protocols could be routed by the network differently,
and the fraction of Internet traffic delivered using encrypted
protocols is increasing every year, it is imperative to measure
packet loss experienced by encrypted protocol users directly instead
of relying on measuring TCP loss between similar endpoints.
Following the recommendation in [RFC8558] of making path signals
explicit, this document proposes adding two explicit loss bits to the
clear portion of the protocol headers to restore network operators'
ability to maintain high QoS for users of encrypted protocols. These
bits can be added to an unencrypted portion of a header belonging to
any protocol layer, e.g. IP (see [IP]) and IPv6 (see [IPv6]) headers
or extensions, UDP surplus space (see [UDP-OPTIONS] and
[UDP-SURPLUS]), reserved bits in a QUIC v1 header (see
[QUIC-TRANSPORT]).
2. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Loss Bits
The proposal introduces two bits that are to be present in every
packet capable of loss reporting. These are packets that include
protocol headers with the loss bits. Only loss of packets capable of
loss reporting is reported using loss bits.
Whenever this specification refers to packets, it is referring only
to packets capable of loss reporting.
- Q: The "sQuare signal" bit is toggled every N outgoing packets as
explained below in Section 3.1.
- L: The "Loss event" bit is set to 0 or 1 according to the
Unreported Loss counter, as explained below in Section 3.2.
Each endpoint maintains appropriate counters independently and
separately for each connection (each subflow for multipath
connections).
3.1. Setting the sQuare Bit on Outgoing Packets
The sQuare Value is initialized to the Initial Q Value (0 or 1) and
is reflected in the Q bit of every outgoing packet. The sQuare value
is inverted after sending every N packets (Q Period is 2*N). The Q
bit represents "packet color" as defined by [RFC8321].
Ferrieux, et al. Expires January 21, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft loss-bits July 2019
The choice of the Initial Q Value and Q Period is determined by the
protocol containing Q and L bits. For example, the values can be
protocol constants (e.g "Initial Q Value" is 0, and "Q Period" is
128), or they can be set explicitly for each connection (e.g.
"Initial Q Value" is whatever value the initial packet has, and "Q
Period" is set per a dedicated TCP option on SYN and SYN/ACK).
Observation points can estimate the upstream losses by counting the
number of packets during a half period of the square signal, as
described in Section 4.
3.2. Setting the Loss Event Bit on Outgoing Packets
The Unreported Loss counter is initialized to 0, and L bit of every
outgoing packet indicates whether the Unreported Loss counter is
positive (L=1 if the counter is positive, and L=0 otherwise).
The value of the Unreported Loss counter is decremented every time a
packet with L=1 is sent.
The value of the Unreported Loss counter is incremented for every
packet that the protocol declares lost, using whatever loss detection
machinery the protocol employs. If the protocol is able to rescind
the loss determination later, the Unreported Loss counter SHOULD NOT
be decremented due to the rescission.
Observation points can estimate the end-to-end loss, as determined by
the upstream endpoint's loss detection machinery, by counting packets
in this direction with a L bit equal to 1, as described in Section 4.
4. Using the Loss Bits for Passive Loss Measurement
There are three sources of observable loss:
- _upstream loss_ - loss between the sender and the observation
point (Section 4.2)
- _downstream loss_ - loss between the observation point and the
destination (Section 4.4)
- _observer loss_ - loss by the observer itself that does not cause
downstream loss (Section 4.5)
The upstream and downstream loss together constitute _end-to-end
loss_ (Section 4.1).
The Q and L bits allow detection and measurement of the types of loss
listed above.
Ferrieux, et al. Expires January 21, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft loss-bits July 2019
4.1. End-To-End Loss
The Loss Event bit allows an observer to calculate the end-to-end
loss rate by counting packets with L bit value of 0 and 1 for a given
connection. The end-to-end loss rate is the fraction of packets with
L=1.
The simplifying assumption here is that upstream loss affects packets
with L=0 and L=1 equally. This may be a simplification, if some loss
is caused by tail-drop in a network device. If the sender congestion
controller reduces the packet send rate after loss, there may be a
sufficient delay before sending packets with L=1 that they have a
greater chance of arriving at the observer.
4.2. Upstream Loss
Blocks of N (half of Q Period) consecutive packets are sent with the
same value of the Q bit, followed by another block of N packets with
inverted value of the Q bit. Hence, knowing the value of N, an on-
path observer can estimate the amount of upstream loss after
observing at least N packets. If "p" is the average number of
packets in a block of packets with the same Q value, then the
upstream loss is "1-p/N".
The observer needs to be able to tolerate packet reordering that can
blur the edges of the square signal.
The Q Period needs to be chosen carefully, since the observation
could become too unreliable in case of packet reordering and loss if
Q Period is too small. However, when Q Period is too large,
connections that send fewer than half Q Period packets do not yield a
useful upstream loss measurement.
The observer needs to differentiate packets as belonging to different
connections, since they use independent counters.
4.3. Correlating End-to-End and Upstream Loss
Upstream loss is calculated by observing the actual packets that did
not suffer the upstream loss. End-to-end loss, however, is
calculated by observing subsequent packets after the sender's
protocol detected the loss. Hence, end-to-end loss is generally
observed with a delay of between 1 RTT (loss declared due to multiple
duplicate acknowledgments) and 1 RTO (loss declared due to a timeout)
relative to the upstream loss.
The connection RTT can sometimes be estimated by timing protocol
handshake messages. This RTT estimate can be greatly improved by
Ferrieux, et al. Expires January 21, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft loss-bits July 2019
observing a dedicated protocol mechanism for conveying RTT
information, such as the Latency Spin bit of [QUIC-TRANSPORT].
Whenever the observer needs to perform a computation that uses both
upstream and end-to-end loss rate measurements, it SHOULD use
upstream loss rate leading the end-to-end loss rate by approximately
1 RTT. If the observer is unable to estimate RTT of the connection,
it should accumulate loss measurements over time periods of at least
4 times the typical RTT for the observed connections.
If the calculated upstream loss rate exceeds the end-to-end loss rate
calculated in Section 4.1, then either the Q Period is too short for
the amount of packet reordering or there is observer loss, described
in Section 4.5. If this happens, the observer SHOULD adjust the
calculated upstream loss rate to match end-to-end loss rate.
4.4. Downstream Loss
Because downstream loss affects only those packets that did not
suffer upstream loss, the end-to-end loss rate ("e") relates to the
upstream loss rate ("u") and downstream loss rate ("d") as
"(1-u)(1-d)=1-e". Hence, "d=(e-u)/(1-u)".
4.5. Observer Loss
A typical deployment of a passive observation system includes a
network tap device that mirrors network packets of interest to a
device that performs analysis and measurement on the mirrored
packets. The observer loss is the loss that occurs on the mirror
path.
Observer loss affects upstream loss rate measurement since it causes
the observer to account for fewer packets in a block of identical Q
bit values (see {{upstreamloss)}). The end-to-end loss rate
measurement, however, is unaffected by the observer loss, since it is
a measurement of the fraction of packets with the set L bit value,
and the observer loss would affect all packets equally (see
Section 4.1).
The need to adjust the upstream loss rate down to match end-to-end
loss rate as described in Section 4.3 is a strong indication of the
observer loss, whose magnitude is between the amount of such
adjustment and the entirety of the upstream loss measured in
Section 4.2.
Ferrieux, et al. Expires January 21, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft loss-bits July 2019
5. Ossification Considerations
Accurate loss information is not critical to the operation of any
protocol, though its presence for a sufficient number of connections
is important for the operation of the networks.
The loss bits are amenable to "greasing" described in [GREASE], if
the protocol designers are not ready to dedicate (and ossify) bits
used for loss reporting to this function. The greasing could be
accomplished similarly to the Latency Spin bit greasing in
[QUIC-TRANSPORT]. Namely, implementations could decide that a
fraction of connections should not encode loss information in the
loss bits and, instead, the bits would be set to arbitrary values.
The observers would need to be ready to ignore connections with loss
information more resembling noise than the expected signal.
6. Security Considerations
Passive loss observation has been a part of the network operations
for a long time, so exposing loss information to the network does not
add new security concerns.
7. Privacy Considerations
Guarding user's privacy is an important goal for modern protocols and
protocol extensions per [RFC7285]. While an explicit loss signal - a
preferred way to share loss information per [RFC8558] - helps to
minimize unintentional exposure of additional information,
implementations of loss reporting must ensure that loss information
does not compromise protocol's privacy goals.
For example, [QUIC-TRANSPORT] allows changing Connection IDs in the
middle of a connection to reduce the likelihood of a passive observer
linking old and new subflows to the same device. A QUIC
implementation would need to reset all counters when it changes the
destination (IP address or UDP port) or the Connection ID used for
outgoing packets. It would also need to avoid incrementing
Unreported Loss counter for loss of packets sent to a different
destinatoin or with a different Connection ID.
8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Ferrieux, et al. Expires January 21, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft loss-bits July 2019
9. Change Log
9.1. Since version 00
- Addressed review comments
- Improved guidelines for privacy protections for QIUC
10. Acknowledgments
The sQuare bit was originally suggested by Kazuho Oku in early
proposals for loss measurement.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[IP] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[IPv6] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[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>.
[RFC8558] Hardie, T., Ed., "Transport Protocol Path Signals",
RFC 8558, DOI 10.17487/RFC8558, April 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8558>.
11.2. Informative References
[GREASE] Benjamin, D., "Applying GREASE to TLS Extensibility",
draft-ietf-tls-grease-02 (work in progress), January 2019.
[QUIC-TRANSPORT]
Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-22 (work
in progress), July 2019.
Ferrieux, et al. Expires January 21, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft loss-bits July 2019
[RFC7285] Alimi, R., Ed., Penno, R., Ed., Yang, Y., Ed., Kiesel, S.,
Previdi, S., Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy,
"Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol",
RFC 7285, DOI 10.17487/RFC7285, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7285>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[RFC8517] Dolson, D., Ed., Snellman, J., Boucadair, M., Ed., and C.
Jacquenet, "An Inventory of Transport-Centric Functions
Provided by Middleboxes: An Operator Perspective",
RFC 8517, DOI 10.17487/RFC8517, February 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8517>.
[TRANSPORT-ENCRYPT]
Fairhurst, G. and C. Perkins, "The Impact of Transport
Header Confidentiality on Network Operation and Evolution
of the Internet", draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-07
(work in progress), July 2019.
[UDP-OPTIONS]
Touch, J., "Transport Options for UDP", draft-ietf-tsvwg-
udp-options-07 (work in progress), March 2019.
[UDP-SURPLUS]
Herbert, T., "UDP Surplus Header", draft-herbert-udp-
space-hdr-01 (work in progress), July 2019.
Authors' Addresses
Alexandre Ferrieux
Orange Labs
EMail: alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com
Isabelle Hamchaoui
Orange Labs
EMail: isabelle.hamchaoui@orange.com
Ferrieux, et al. Expires January 21, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft loss-bits July 2019
Igor Lubashev
Akamai Technologies
150 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 1122
USA
EMail: ilubashe@akamai.com
Ferrieux, et al. Expires January 21, 2020 [Page 10]