Network Working Group K. Smith
Internet-Draft Vodafone Group
Intended status: Informational May 12, 2016
Expires: November 13, 2016
Network management of encrypted traffic
draft-smith-encrypted-traffic-management-05
Abstract
Encrypted Internet traffic may pose traffic management challenges to
network operators. This document recommends approaches to help
manage encrypted traffic, without breaching user privacy or security.
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 November 13, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
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.
Smith Expires November 13, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft encrypted-traffic-management May 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Document structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Network management functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Persisting traffic management without breaching encryption . 3
3.1. Providing hints to and from the network . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. DiffServ Code Points (DSCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.2. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) . . . . . . . 4
3.1.3. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.4. Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams (SPUD) . . . . 5
3.1.5. Mobile throughput Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.6. Port Control Protocol Flowdata options . . . . . . . 5
3.1.7. IPv6 Flow label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.8. DISCUSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.9. Active Queue Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.10. Congestion Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Inferred flow information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Co-operation on congestion control . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
Networks utilise various management techniques to ensure efficient
throughput, congestion management, anti-SPAM and security measures.
Historically these functions have utilised visibility of the Internet
application layer.
This visibility is rapidly diminishing - encrypted Internet traffic
is expected to continue its upward trend, driven by increased privacy
awareness, uptake by popular services, and advocacy from the [IAB],
[RFC7258] and W3C [TAG] .
[IAB], [RFC7258] and [mm-effect-encrypt] recognise that network
management functions may be impacted by encryption, and that
solutions to persist these management functions must not threaten
user security or privacy. Such solutions can ensure the benefits of
encryption do not degrade network efficiency.
This document lists such solutions, and points to evolving IETF work
addressing the problem.
Smith Expires November 13, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft encrypted-traffic-management May 2016
1.1. Document structure
This document refers to network management functions that may be
hindered by traffic encryption, as described in [mm-effect-encrypt]
It then describes the technical details of existing options to fully
or partially persist these functions under encryption. The guidance
includes existing techniques as well as ongoing IETF work in this
area.'Encryption' in this document typically refers to HTTP over TLS
[RFC2818]; other forms of encryption are noted where applicable.
Finally, a summary is provided of ongoing IETF work which is
investigating how network operators, origin servers and clients may
co-operate in efficient traffic delivery without the need for
pervasive network monitoring.
The legal, political and commercial aspects of network management are
recgnised but not covered in this technical document.
2. Network management functions
Please refer to 'Network Service Provider Monitoring' in
[mm-effect-encrypt]
3. Persisting traffic management without breaching encryption
This section involves utilisation of 'Application-based Flow
Information Visible to a Network', [mm-effect-encrypt].
3.1. Providing hints to and from the network
The following protocols aim to support a secure and privacy-aware
dialogue between client, server and the network elements. These
hints can allow information item exchange between the endpoints and
the network, to assist queuing mechanisms and traffic pacing that
accounts for network congestion and variable connection strength.
These relate to the cooperative path to endpoint signalling as
discussed at the IAB SEMI [SEMI] and MaRNEW [MaRNEW] workshops, with
the network following a more clearly-defined role in encrypted
traffic delivery.
3.1.1. DiffServ Code Points (DSCP)
Data packets may be flagged with a traffic class (class of service).
Network operators may honour a DiffServ classification [RFC2474]
entering their network, or may choose to override it (since it is
potentially open to abuse by a service provider that classifies all
Smith Expires November 13, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft encrypted-traffic-management May 2016
its content as high priority). The purpose is to help manage traffic
and congestion in the network.
This requires the content provider to flag data packets. This is
extra work for the provider, and it has potential for abuse if a
content provider simply flags all packets with high priorities. The
network would need to know which flags to trust and which to
override. The use of DiffServ within the operator network is
beneficial where the operator determines the class of service itself;
but where content is encrypted then heuristics would be needed to
predict the traffic type entering the network. HTTP/2 allows several
streams to be multiplexed over a single TCP connection. This means
that if a provider decides to send Web pages, videos, chat etc. as
individual streams over the same connection, then DiffServ would be
useless as it would apply to the TCP/IP connection as a whole.
However it may be more efficient for such Web providers to serve each
content type from separate, dedicated servers - this will become
clearer as HTTP/2 deployments are tuned for optimal delivery.
3.1.2. Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC6138] routers can exchange
congestion notification headers to ECN compliant endpoints. This is
in preference to inferring congestion from dropped packets (e.g. in
TCP). The purpose is to help manage traffic and congestion in the
network.
This solution is required to be implemented at network and service
provider. The service provider will utilise the ECN to reduce
throughput until it is notified that congestion has eased.
As with DiffServ, operators may not trust an external entity to mark
packets in a fair/consistent manner.
3.1.3. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
On entering an MPLS-compliant network [RFC3031], IP packets are
flagged with a 'Forward Equivalence Class' (FEC). This allows the
network to make packet-forwarding decisions according to their
latency requirements. MPLS routers within the network parse and act
upon the FEC value. The FEC is set according to the source IP
address and port. The purpose is to help managing traffic and
congestion in the network. This requires deployment of an MPLS
'backbone' with label-aware switches/ routers.
An up-to-date correspondence table between Websites (or service sites
in general) and server IP address must be created. Then, the
category(s) of traffic have to be consistently mapped to a set of
Smith Expires November 13, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft encrypted-traffic-management May 2016
MPLS labels ,which entails a significant effort to setup and
maintain.
Note: MPLS can specify how OSI Layer 3 (IP layer) traffic can be
routed over Layer 2 (Data Link); DiffServ only operates over Layer 3.
DiffServ is potentially a less complex integration as it is applied
at the network edge servers only.
3.1.4. Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams (SPUD)
SPUD [SPUD] is a prototype to research how network devices on the
path between endpoints can share information to improve a flow. The
network involvement is outside of the end-to-end context, to minimise
any privacy or security breach. The initial prototype involves
grouping UDP packets into an explicit 'tube', however support of
additional transport layers (such as TCP) will also be investigated.
3.1.5. Mobile throughput Guidance
Mobile Throughput Guidance In-band Signalling [MTG] is a draft
proposal to allows the network to inform the server endpoint as to
what bandwidth the TCP connection can reasonably expect. This allows
the server to adapt their throughput pacing based on dynamic network
conditions, which can assist mechanisms such as Adaptive Bitrate
Streaming and TCP congestion control.
3.1.6. Port Control Protocol Flowdata options
PCP Flowdata options [PCPFD] defines a mechanism for a host to signal
flow characteristics to the network, and the network to signal its
ability to accommodate that flow back to the host. This allows
certain network flows to receive service that is differentiated from
other network flows, and may be used to establish flow priority
before connection establishment. PCP Flowdata operates at IPv4/IPv6
level.
3.1.7. IPv6 Flow label
IPv6 includes a flow label header field. [RFC6438] details how this
may be used to identify flows for load balancing and multipath
routing, which may be of particular use for application-layer
encrypted traffic. The flow label field is part of the main header,
which means it is not subject to the disadvantages of extension
headers (namely their risk of being dropped by intermediary routers).
The flow label may also be exposed as part of the outer IP packet in
an IP tunnel, thus providing network flow information without
compromising the payload.
Smith Expires November 13, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft encrypted-traffic-management May 2016
3.1.8. DISCUSS
Differentiated prIorities and Status Code-points Using Stun
Signalling [DISCUSS] describes a mechanism for information exchange
between an application and the network, viable only for UDP. As such
it can be considered in the same bracket as SPUD
3.1.9. Active Queue Management
The IETF Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling WG [AQM] works
on algorithms to manage network queues, with the aim of reducing
packet delay and taming aggressive/misbehaving flows. This includes
allowing flow sources to control their sending rates to avoid
unnecessary losses (e.g. with [RFC6138]).
3.1.10. Congestion Exposure
The Congestion Exposure WG [CONEX] makes congestion markings (based
on congestion experienced in the flow) available to the network via
IP headers, in order to drive capacity efficiency. The WG made an
IPv6 binding before the group concluded, however it is feasible for
the congestion exposure markings to also be transported by another
mechanism, such as SPUD.
3.2. Inferred flow information
3.2.1. Heuristics
Heuristics can be used to map given input data to particular
conclusions via some heuristic reasoning. Examples of input data to
this reasoning include IP destination address, TCP destination port,
server name from SNI, and typical traffic patterns (e.g. occurrence
of IP packets and TCP segments over time). The accuracy of
heuristics depends on whether the observed traffic originates from a
source delivering a single service, or a blend of services. In many
scenarios, this makes it possible to directly classify the traffic
related to a specific server/service even when the traffic is fully
encrypted.
If the server/service is co-located on an infrastructure with other
services that shares the same IP-address, the encrypted traffic
cannot be directly classified. However, commercial traffic
classifiers today typically apply heuristic methods, using traffic
pattern matching algorithms to be able to identify the traffic. As
an example, classifier products are able to identify popular VoIP
services using heuristic methods although the traffic is encrypted
and mostly peer-to-peer.
Smith Expires November 13, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft encrypted-traffic-management May 2016
3.3. Co-operation on congestion control
One idea from the IAB 'Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted World'
workshop [MaRNEW] was that of better co-operation between 3GPP mobile
networks and Internet services on congestion management. . 3GPP
networks are concerned with ensuring that all devices attached to a
particular cell receive a fair share of radio resources. This is
critical, since these resources are constrained to various licenced
spectrum bands, and volatile due to signal strength variation/cell
handover/interference etc. The resource sharing process occurs
independently to TCP congestion management performed between the
client and server connected via the mobile network: the result is
that TCP may wrongly infer congestion and react accordingly, or
attempt to accelerate throughput without consideration of the
available radio resources. Therefore the notion is to investigate
co-operation between radio and TCP congestion controls to better
manage connection throughput.
4. Acknowledgements
The editor would like to thank the GSMA Web Working Group for their
contributions, in particular to the technical solutions and network
management functions; the contributions via the SAAG mailing list
(Panos Kampanakis, Brian Carpenter); and Kathleen Moriarty and Al
Morton for their guidance in aligning this draft with
[mm-effect-encrypt]
5. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations.
6. Security Considerations
The intention of this document is to consider how to persist network
management of encrypted traffic, without breaching user privacy or
end-to-end security. In particular this document does not recommend
any approach that intercepts or modifies client-server Transport
Layer Security.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., "Definition of the Differentiated Services
Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
Dec 1998.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
Smith Expires November 13, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft encrypted-traffic-management May 2016
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture",
RFC 3031, Jan 2001.
[RFC6138] Ramakrishnan, K., "The Addition of Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 6138, Sep 2001.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, 2011.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, May 2014.
7.2. Informative References
[AQM] IETF, "Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling (IETF
WG)", 2016, <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/aqm/charters>.
[CONEX] IETF, "Congestion Exposure (concluded IETF WG)", 2015,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/conex/charter/>.
[DISCUSS] Cisco, "Differentiated prIorities and Status Code-points
Using Stun Signalling", 2015,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-martinsen-tram-discuss-
02>.
[IAB] IAB, "IAB statement on Internet confidentiality", n.d.,
<https://www.iab.org/2014/11/14/iab-statement-on-internet-
confidentiality/>.
[MaRNEW] IAB and GSMA, "Managing Radio Networks in an Encrypted
World (MaRNEW)", 2015,
<https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/marnew/>.
[mm-effect-encrypt]
IETF, "Effect of Ubiquitous Encryption", n.d.,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mm-wg-effect-
encrypt/>.
[MTG] IETF, "Mobile Throughput Guidance Inband Signaling
Protocol", n.d., <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
flinck-mobile-throughput-guidance/>.
[PCPFD] Cisco, "PCP Flowdata option", 2013,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-pcp-flowdata-00>.
Smith Expires November 13, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft encrypted-traffic-management May 2016
[SEMI] IAB, "IAB workshop, 'Stack Evolution in a Middlebox
Internet'", n.d.,
<https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/semi/>.
[SPUD] IETF, "Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams", n.d.,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hildebrand-spud-
prototype-03>.
[TAG] W3C, "Securing the Web", n.d., <https://w3ctag.github.io/
web-https/>.
Author's Address
Kevin Smith
Vodafone Group
Email: kevin.smith@vodafone.com
Smith Expires November 13, 2016 [Page 9]