Network Working Group X. Marjou, Ed. Internet-Draft A. Braud Intended status: Informational Orange Expires: January 1, 2017 R. Romuald Telecom Bretagne June 30, 2016 Traceroute Use Case for SPUD draft-marjou-spud-traceroute-use-cases-00 Abstract In the context of the Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams (SPUD), this document proposes a new use case and its derived requirements: a traceroute function allowing users to explicitly ask middleboxes (a.k.a. network devices) to provide their geospatial information. 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 January 1, 2017. 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 Marjou, et al. Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Traceroute Use Case for SPUD June 2016 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Use case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Global Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.1. User Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.2. Server Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Traceroute, First Network Device Only . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. Do Not Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.1. Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.2. Do Not Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction The IAB is currently working on the evolution of the IP stack program, as captured in [I-D.trammell-stackevo-explicit-coop] to de- ossify the IP stack. The Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams (SPUD) is a candidate for solving some of the needs identified by this work. A first set of SPUD use-cases has already been identified as described in [I-D.trammell-spud-req]. This document proposes an additional use-case and the derived requirements: a traceroute function allowing users to explicitly ask middleboxes (a.k.a. network devices) to provide their geospatial information. 2. Terminology Middlebox: As defined in [RFC3234], a middlebox is any intermediary device performing functions other than the normal, standard functions of an IP router on the datagram path between a source host and destination host; e.g. making decisions about forwarding behavior based on other than addressing information, and/or modifying a packet before forwarding. Geospatial information: A set of coordinates containing a longitude, a latitude and possibly a timestamp which describes the location of the middlebox. Marjou, et al. Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Traceroute Use Case for SPUD June 2016 3. Use case 3.1. Global Traceroute 3.1.1. User Initiative A user wishes to obtain hints about the route taken by its IP flows. More precisely, the user wishes to get the geospatial information of the middleboxes located on the path between his device and the remote server. 3.1.2. Server Initiative A service provider like an online bank service wishes to obtain hints about the route taken by the IP flows of their users in order to increase the probabilities that the remote device is under control of the real user and not under control of a fake user. The activation of the traceroute requires the consent of the user. 3.2. Traceroute, First Network Device Only A user wishes to activate the traceroute function on the first encountered middlebox to get an approximate location for his device. 3.3. Do Not Traceroute At any time, the user can require the middleboxes to stop providing geospatial information. 4. Requirements 4.1. Traceroute REQ-1: A server endpoint MAY propose the traceroute activation. It will be up to the user to accept or reject the proposal. REQ-2: A SPUD client MUST be able to request one or more middleboxes to provide their geospatial information. REQ-3: The geospatial information provided by a middlebox MUST be non repudiable. REQ-4: Providing geospatial information MUST not add significant delay to the packets of the flow. Marjou, et al. Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Traceroute Use Case for SPUD June 2016 4.2. Do Not Traceroute REQ-5: A SPUD client MUST be able to request the middleboxes not to provide geospatial information. REQ-6: A middlebox MUST NOT provide geospatial information without an explicit consent of the user. 5. Security Considerations When there is a Graphical User Interface (GUI), the user needs an explicit notification indicating whether the traceroute mechanism is used or not. 6. IANA Considerations None. 7. Acknowledgements To do. 8. Informative references [I-D.trammell-spud-req] Trammell, B. and M. KĂźhlewind, "Requirements for the design of a Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams (SPUD)", draft-trammell-spud-req-01 (work in progress), October 2015. [I-D.trammell-stackevo-explicit-coop] Trammell, B., "Architectural Considerations for Transport Evolution with Explicit Path Cooperation", draft-trammell- stackevo-explicit-coop-00 (work in progress), September 2015. [RFC3234] Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes: Taxonomy and Issues", RFC 3234, DOI 10.17487/RFC3234, February 2002, . Authors' Addresses Marjou, et al. Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Traceroute Use Case for SPUD June 2016 Xavier Marjou (editor) Orange 2, avenue Pierre Marzin Lannion 22307 France Email: xavier.marjou@orange.com Arnaud Braud Orange 2, avenue Pierre Marzin Lannion 22307 France Email: arnaud.braud@orange.com Romuald Corbel Telecom Bretagne 655 Avenue du Technopole Plouzane 29200 France Email: romuald.corbel@telecom-bretagne.eu Marjou, et al. Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 5]