Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SOCKS over QUIC #2518

Closed
madhanraj opened this issue Mar 12, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

SOCKS over QUIC #2518

madhanraj opened this issue Mar 12, 2019 · 4 comments
Labels
invalid A duplicate, overcome-by-events, ill-formed, or off-topic issue, or a question better asked on-list.

Comments

@madhanraj
Copy link

Currently, the SOCKS and QUIC don't work straight forward.
When SOCKS is used, a REQUEST (method, dest port, dest IP) has to be sent during each time of connection establishment. This is straight forward in TCP but in QUIC we establish the connection once with the SOCKS server and multiplex the streams amongst it.
Hence, a new method for SOCKS over QUIC is proposed where the REQUEST and RESPONSE are modified according to the QUIC design

Another important issue with SOCKS is the initial overhead. In our real-time results with Samsung Smartphones, we observed that most the application are short-lived and socks delay impacts the user experience. Hence we have to decide the packets to be packed one the 0-RTT and also if the tunnel can be pre-established with one-time authentication messages being transferred.

We would like to know, if there is similar work going on or shall we submit a fresh RFC including the problem and our approaches

@larseggert
Copy link
Member

This is unfortunately outside the charter of the working group, which you can find at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/about/. You may of course submit an Internet Draft if you wish and ask the group for feedback, but our current charter prevents us from doing any work in this space.

@larseggert larseggert added the invalid A duplicate, overcome-by-events, ill-formed, or off-topic issue, or a question better asked on-list. label Mar 12, 2019
@DavidSchinazi
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @madhanraj, I think your work sounds interesting. I would recommend creating a new internet draft and sharing it on the QUIC mailing list please!

@LPardue
Copy link
Member

LPardue commented Mar 12, 2019

@madhanraj I too think this is interesting and second @DavidSchinazi recommendation. There are some people thinking about this area and more use cases are welcome, even if we are tangential to the main focus of the group.

I recommend some of the following resources:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-olteanu-intarea-socks-6/
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pauly-quic-datagram-02
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pardue-httpbis-http-network-tunnelling-01

@madhanraj
Copy link
Author

Thanks .. I missed it as it was labelled closed. We have designed and experimented in our Samsung Lab and find the solution promising from the legacy. Will share the draft and all the results shortly.
Also why socks and quic ?
If we have to make a proxy solution for all the application (non http too) and if it has to be application agnostic . We have already deployed a similar approach for MPTCP. Hence SOCKS+QUIC would be a interesting use case

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
invalid A duplicate, overcome-by-events, ill-formed, or off-topic issue, or a question better asked on-list.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants