Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
194 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Core QUIC: Enabling Dynamic, Implementation-Agnostic Protocol Extensions (2405.01279v1)

Published 2 May 2024 in cs.NI

Abstract: While applications quickly evolve, Internet protocols do not follow the same pace. There are two root causes for this. First, extending protocol with cleartext control plane is usually hindered by various network devices such as middleboxes. Second, such extensions usually require support from all participating entities, but often these run different implementations, leading to the chicken-and-egg deployment issue. The recently standardized QUIC protocol paved the way for dealing with the first concern by embedding encryption by design. However, it attracted so much interest that there is now a large heterogeneity in QUIC implementations, hence amplifying the second problem. To get rid of these deployment issues and to enable inter-operable, implementation-independent innovation at transport layer, we propose a paradigm shift called Core QUIC. While Core QUIC keeps compliant with the standardized QUIC protocol, it enforces implementation architecture such that any Core QUIC-supporting participant can be extended with the same, generic bytecode. To achieve this, Core QUIC defines a standardized representation format of common QUIC structures on which plugins running in a controlled environment can operate to extend the underlying host implementation. We demonstrate the feasibility of our approach by making two implementations Core QUIC-compliant. Then, we show that we can extend both with the same plugin code over several use cases.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (29)
  1. M. Honda et al., “Is It Still Possible to Extend TCP?” in ACM IMC ’11, 2011, pp. 181–194.
  2. L. Budzisz et al., “A taxonomy and survey of SCTP research,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 44, no. 4, p. 18, 2012.
  3. T. Wirtgen et al., “xBGP: Faster innovation in routing protocols,” in USENIX NSDI’23, Apr. 2023, pp. 575–592.
  4. J. Iyengar and M. Thomson, “QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport,” RFC 9000, May 2021.
  5. E. Rescorla, “The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3,” RFC 8446, Aug. 2018.
  6. Q. De Coninck et al., “Pluginizing QUIC,” in ACM SIGCOMM ’19.   Beijing, China: ACM Press, 2019, pp. 59–74.
  7. J. Iyengar and I. Swett, “QUIC Loss Detection and Congestion Control,” RFC 9002, May 2021.
  8. M. Fleming, “A thorough introduction to eBPF,” Linux Weekly News, Dec. 2017, https://old.lwn.net/Articles/740157/,Accessed:2021-02-04,.
  9. A. Haas et al., “Bringing the web up to speed with WebAssembly,” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 185–200, 2017.
  10. J. Dejaeghere et al., “Comparing security in ebpf and webassembly,” in ACM Workshop on eBPF and Kernel Extensions, 2023, pp. 35–41.
  11. M. Jacobsson and J. Willén, “Virtual machine execution for wearables based on webassembly,” in EAI BODYNETS, 2018, pp. 381–389.
  12. eosio, “Eos virtual machine: A high-performance blockchain webassembly interpreter,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://eos.io/news/eos-virtual-machine-a-high-performance-blockchain-webassembly-interpreter/
  13. N. D. Matsakis and F. S. Klock II, “The rust language,” ACM SIGAda Ada Letters, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 103–104, 2014.
  14. WasmerIO. Wasmer. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer
  15. D. Lehmann et al., “Everything old is new again: Binary security of WebAssembly,” in USENIX Security ’20, 2020, pp. 217–234.
  16. R. Marx et al., “Debugging quic and http/3 with qlog and qvis,” in ACM ANRW ’20, 2020, pp. 58–66.
  17. M. S. Rahman et al., “Tik-tok: The utility of packet timing in website fingerprinting attacks,” PoPETs ’20, vol. 3, pp. 5–24, 2020.
  18. J.-P. Smith et al., “QCSD: A QUIC client-side website-fingerprinting defence framework,” in USENIX Security ’22, pp. 771–789.
  19. N. Handigol et al., “Reproducible Network Experiments Using Container-Based Emulation,” in ACM CoNEXT ’12’, pp. 253–264.
  20. N. Kuhn et al., “Signalling CC Parameters for Careful Resume using QUIC,” IETF Draft draft-kuhn-quic-bdpframe-extension-05, Mar. 2024.
  21. D. L. Tennenhouse et al., “A survey of active network research,” IEEE communications Magazine, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 80–86, 1997.
  22. M. Hicks et al., “PLAN: A packet language for active networks,” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 86–93, 1998.
  23. K. Psounis, “Active networks: Applications, security, safety, and architectures,” IEEE Communications Surveys, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 2–16, 1999.
  24. N. McKeown et al., “OpenFlow: enabling innovation in campus networks,” ACM SIGCOMM CCR, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 69–74, 2008.
  25. P. Bosshart et al., “P4: Programming protocol-independent packet processors,” ACM SIGCOMM CCR, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 87–95, 2014.
  26. P. G. Bridges et al., “A Configurable and Extensible Transport Protocol,” IEEE/ACM ToN, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1254–1265, Dec. 2007.
  27. P. Patel et al., “Upgrading Transport Protocols using Untrusted Mobile Code,” ACM SIGOPS OSR, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1–14, 2003.
  28. F. Rochet et al., “Tcpls: Modern transport services with tcp and tls,” in ACM CoNEXT’21, 2021, p. 45–59.
  29. F. Rochet and T. Elahi, “Towards flexible anonymous networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03764, 2022.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets