Tech-invite3GPPspecsGlossariesIETFRFCsGroupsSIPABNFsWorld Map

RFC 8404

Pages: 53
Top     in Index     Prev     Next
in Group Index     Prev in Group     Next in Group     Group: ~sec

Effects of Pervasive Encryption on Operators

Part 1 of 3, p. 1 to 22
None       Next Section


Top       ToC       Page 1 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                  K. Moriarty, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8404                                      Dell EMC
Category: Informational                                   A. Morton, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                AT&T Labs
                                                               July 2018

              Effects of Pervasive Encryption on Operators


   Pervasive monitoring attacks on the privacy of Internet users are of
   serious concern to both user and operator communities.  RFC 7258
   discusses the critical need to protect users' privacy when developing
   IETF specifications and also recognizes that making networks
   unmanageable to mitigate pervasive monitoring is not an acceptable
   outcome: an appropriate balance is needed.  This document discusses
   current security and network operations as well as management
   practices that may be impacted by the shift to increased use of
   encryption to help guide protocol development in support of
   manageable and secure networks.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It has been approved for publication by the Internet
   Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents approved by the
   IESG are candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2
   of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

Top      ToC       Page 2 
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   ( 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Additional Background on Encryption Changes . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Examples of Attempts to Preserve Functions  . . . . . . .   7
   2.  Network Service Provider Monitoring Practices . . . . . . . .   8
     2.1.  Passive Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.1.  Traffic Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.2.  Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.1.3.  Traffic-Analysis Fingerprinting . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.2.  Traffic Optimization and Management . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.2.1.  Load Balancers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.2.2.  Differential Treatment Based on Deep Packet
               Inspection (DPI)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       2.2.3.  Network-Congestion Management . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.2.4.  Performance-Enhancing Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.2.5.  Caching and Content Replication near the Network Edge  17
       2.2.6.  Content Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       2.2.7.  Service Function Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     2.3.  Content Filtering, Network Access, and Accounting . . . .  19
       2.3.1.  Content Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.3.2.  Network Access and Data Usage . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       2.3.3.  Application Layer Gateways (ALGs) . . . . . . . . . .  21
       2.3.4.  HTTP Header Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   3.  Encryption in Hosting and Application SP Environments . . . .  23
     3.1.  Management-Access Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       3.1.1.  Monitoring Customer Access  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       3.1.2.  SP Content Monitoring of Applications . . . . . . . .  24
     3.2.  Hosted Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       3.2.1.  Monitoring Managed Applications . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       3.2.2.  Mail Service Providers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     3.3.  Data Storage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
       3.3.1.  Object-Level Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28

Top      ToC       Page 3 
       3.3.2.  Disk Encryption, Data at Rest (DAR) . . . . . . . . .  29
       3.3.3.  Cross-Data-Center Replication Services  . . . . . . .  29
   4.  Encryption for Enterprises  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     4.1.  Monitoring Practices of the Enterprise  . . . . . . . . .  30
       4.1.1.  Security Monitoring in the Enterprise . . . . . . . .  31
       4.1.2.  Monitoring Application Performance in the Enterprise   32
       4.1.3.  Diagnostics and Troubleshooting for Enterprise
               Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     4.2.  Techniques for Monitoring Internet-Session Traffic  . . .  34
   5.  Security Monitoring for Specific Attack Types . . . . . . . .  36
     5.1.  Mail Abuse and Spam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     5.2.  Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     5.3.  Phishing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     5.4.  Botnets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     5.5.  Malware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     5.6.  Spoofed-Source IP Address Protection  . . . . . . . . . .  39
     5.7.  Further Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
   6.  Application-Based Flow Information Visible to a Network . . .  40
     6.1.  IP Flow Information Export  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
     6.2.  TLS Server Name Indication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
     6.3.  Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) . . . . . .  41
     6.4.  Content Length, Bitrate, and Pacing . . . . . . . . . . .  42
   7.  Effect of Encryption on the Evolution of Mobile Networks  . .  42
   8.  Response to Increased Encryption and Looking Forward  . . . .  43
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53

1.  Introduction

   In response to pervasive monitoring revelations and the IETF
   consensus that pervasive monitoring is an attack [RFC7258], efforts
   are underway to increase encryption of Internet traffic.  Pervasive
   monitoring is of serious concern to users, operators, and application
   providers.  RFC 7258 discusses the critical need to protect users'
   privacy when developing IETF specifications and also recognizes that
   making networks unmanageable to mitigate pervasive monitoring is not
   an acceptable outcome; rather, an appropriate balance would emerge
   over time.

   This document describes practices currently used by network operators
   to manage, operate, and secure their networks and how those practices
   may be impacted by a shift to increased use of encryption.  It
   provides network operators' perspectives about the motivations and
   objectives of those practices as well as effects anticipated by
   operators as use of encryption increases.  It is a summary of

Top      ToC       Page 4 
   concerns of the operational community as they transition to managing
   networks with less visibility.  This document does not endorse the
   use of the practices described herein, nor does it aim to provide a
   comprehensive treatment of the effects of current practices, some of
   which have been considered controversial from a technical or business
   perspectives or contradictory to previous IETF statements (e.g.,
   [RFC1958], [RFC1984], and [RFC2804]).  The following RFCs consider
   the end-to-end (e2e) architectural principle to be a guiding
   principle for the development of Internet protocols [RFC2775]
   [RFC3724] [RFC7754].

   This document aims to help IETF participants understand network
   operators' perspectives about the impact of pervasive encryption,
   both opportunistic and strong end-to-end encryption, on operational
   practices.  The goal is to help inform future protocol development to
   ensure that operational impact is part of the conversation.  Perhaps
   new methods could be developed to accomplish some of the goals of
   current practices despite changes in the extent to which cleartext
   will be available to network operators (including methods that rely
   on network endpoints where applicable).  Discussion of current
   practices and the potential future changes is provided as a
   prerequisite to potential future cross-industry and cross-layer work
   to support the ongoing evolution towards a functional Internet with
   pervasive encryption.

   Traditional network management, planning, security operations, and
   performance optimization have been developed on the Internet where a
   large majority of data traffic flows without encryption.  While
   unencrypted traffic has made information that aids operations and
   troubleshooting at all layers accessible, it has also made pervasive
   monitoring by unseen parties possible.  With broad support and
   increased awareness of the need to consider privacy in all aspects
   across the Internet, it is important to catalog existing management,
   operational, and security practices that have depended upon the
   availability of cleartext to function and to explore if critical
   operational practices can be met by less-invasive means.

   This document refers to several different forms of Service Providers
   (SPs).  For example, network service providers (or network operators)
   provide IP-packet transport primarily, though they may bundle other
   services with packet transport.  Alternatively, application service
   providers primarily offer systems that participate as an endpoint in
   communications with the application user and hosting service
   providers lease computing, storage, and communications systems in
   data centers.  In practice, many companies perform two or more
   service provider roles but may be historically associated with one.

Top      ToC       Page 5 
   This document includes a sampling of current practices and does not
   attempt to describe every nuance.  Some sections cover technologies
   used over a broad spectrum of devices and use cases.

1.1.  Additional Background on Encryption Changes

   Pervasive encryption in this document refers to all types of session
   encryption including Transport Layer Security (TLS), IP Security
   (IPsec), TCPcrypt [TCPcrypt], QUIC [QUIC] (IETF's specification of
   Google's QUIC), and others that are increasingly deployed.  It is
   well understood that session encryption helps to prevent both passive
   and active attacks on transport protocols; more on pervasive
   monitoring can be found in "Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive
   Surveillance: A Threat Model and Problem Statement" [RFC7624].
   Active attacks have long been a motivation for increased encryption,
   and preventing pervasive monitoring became a focus just a few years
   ago.  As such, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) released a
   statement advocating for increased use of encryption in November 2014
   (see <
   confidentiality/>).  Perspectives on encryption paradigms have
   shifted over time to make ease of deployment a high priority and to
   balance that against providing the maximum possible level of
   security, regardless of deployment considerations.

   One such shift is documented in Opportunistic Security (OS)
   [RFC7435], which suggests that when use of authenticated encryption
   is not possible, cleartext sessions should be upgraded to
   unauthenticated session encryption, rather than no encryption.  OS
   encourages upgrading from cleartext but cannot require or guarantee
   such upgrades.  Once OS is used, it allows for an evolution to
   authenticated encryption.  These efforts are necessary to improve an
   end user's expectation of privacy, making pervasive monitoring cost
   prohibitive.  With OS in use, active attacks are still possible on
   unauthenticated sessions.  OS has been implemented as NULL
   Authentication with IPsec [RFC7619], and there are a number of
   infrastructure use cases such as server-to-server encryption where
   this mode is deployed.  While OS is helpful in reducing pervasive
   monitoring by increasing the cost to monitor, it is recognized that
   risk profiles for some applications require authenticated and secure
   session encryption as well prevention of active attacks.  IPsec, and
   other session encryption protocols, with authentication has many
   useful applications, and usage has increased for infrastructure
   applications such as for virtual private networks between data
   centers.  OS, as well as other protocol developments like the
   Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME), have increased
   the usage of session encryption on the Internet.

Top      ToC       Page 6 
   Risk profiles vary and so do the types of session encryption
   deployed.  To understand the scope of changes in visibility, a few
   examples are highlighted.  Work continues to improve the
   implementation, development, and configuration of TLS and DTLS
   sessions to prevent active attacks used to monitor or intercept
   session data.  The changes from TLS 1.2 to 1.3 enhance the security
   of TLS, while hiding more of the session negotiation and providing
   less visibility on the wire.  The Using TLS in Applications (UTA)
   Working Group has been publishing documentation to improve the
   security of TLS and DTLS sessions.  They have documented the known
   attack vectors in [RFC7457], have documented best practices for TLS
   and DTLS in [RFC7525], and have other documents in development.  The
   recommendations from these documents were built upon for TLS 1.3 to
   provide a more inherently secure end-to-end protocol.

   In addition to encrypted website access (HTTP over TLS), there are
   other well-deployed application-level transport encryption efforts
   such as MTA-to-MTA (mail transfer agent) session encryption transport
   for email (SMTP over TLS) and gateway-to-gateway for instant
   messaging (the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) over
   TLS).  Although this does provide protection from transport-layer
   attacks, the servers could be a point of vulnerability if user-to-
   user encryption is not provided for these messaging protocols.
   User-to-user content encryption schemes, such as S/MIME and Pretty
   Good Privacy (PGP) for email and Off-the-Record (OTR) encryption for
   XMPP are used by those interested in protecting their data as it
   crosses intermediary servers, preventing transport-layer attacks by
   providing an end-to-end solution.  User-to-user schemes are under
   review, and additional options will emerge to ease the configuration
   requirements, making this type of option more accessible to
   non-technical users interested in protecting their privacy.

   Increased use of encryption, either opportunistic or authenticated,
   at the transport, network, or application layer, impacts how networks
   are operated, managed, and secured.  In some cases, new methods to
   operate, manage, and secure networks will evolve in response.  In
   other cases, currently available capabilities for monitoring or
   troubleshooting networks could become unavailable.  This document
   lists a collection of functions currently employed by network
   operators that may be impacted by the shift to increased use of
   encryption.  This document does not attempt to specify responses or
   solutions to these impacts; it documents the current state.

Top      ToC       Page 7 
1.2.  Examples of Attempts to Preserve Functions

   Following the Snowden [Snowden] revelations, application service
   providers (Yahoo, Google, etc.) responded by encrypting traffic
   between their data centers (IPsec) to prevent passive monitoring from
   taking place unbeknownst to them.  Infrastructure traffic carried
   over the public Internet has been encrypted for some time; this
   change for universal encryption was specific to their private
   backbones.  Large mail service providers also began to encrypt
   session transport (TLS) to hosted mail services.  This and other
   increases in the use of encryption had the immediate effect of
   providing confidentiality and integrity for protected data, but it
   created a problem for some network-management functions.  Operators
   could no longer gain access to some session streams resulting in
   actions by several to regain their operational practices that
   previously depended on cleartext data sessions.

   The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reported [EFF2014] several
   network service providers using a downgrade attack to prevent the use
   of SMTP over TLS by breaking STARTTLS (Section 3.2 of [RFC7525]),
   essentially preventing the negotiation process resulting in fallback
   to the use of cleartext.  There have already been documented cases of
   service providers preventing STARTTLS to avoid session encryption
   negotiation on some sessions.  Doing so allows them to inject a super
   cookie that enables advertisers to track users; these actions are
   also considered an attack.  These serve as examples of undesirable
   behavior that could be prevented through upfront discussions in
   protocol work for operators and protocol designers to understand the
   implications of such actions.  In other cases, some service providers
   and enterprises have relied on middleboxes having access to cleartext
   for load-balancing, monitoring for attack traffic, meeting regulatory
   requirements, or other purposes.  The implications for enterprises
   that own the data on their networks or that have explicit agreements
   that permit the monitoring of user traffic are very different from
   those for service providers who may be accessing content in a way
   that violates privacy considerations.  Additionally, service provider
   equipment is designed for accessing only the headers exposed for the
   data-link, network, and transport layers.  Delving deeper into
   packets is possible, but there is typically a high degree of accuracy
   from the header information and packet sizes when limited to header
   information from these three layers.  Service providers also have the
   option of adding routing overlay protocols to traffic.  These
   middlebox implementations, performing functions either considered
   legitimate by the IETF or not, have been impacted by increases in
   encrypted traffic.  Only methods keeping with the goal of balancing
   network management and pervasive monitoring mitigation as discussed
   in [RFC7258] should be considered in work toward a solution resulting
   from this document.

Top      ToC       Page 8 
   It is well known that national surveillance programs monitor traffic
   for criminal activities [JNSLP] [RFC2804] [RFC7258].  Governments
   vary on their balance between monitoring versus the protection of
   user privacy, data, and assets.  Those that favor unencrypted access
   to data ignore the real need to protect users' identities, financial
   transactions, and intellectual property (which require security and
   encryption to prevent crime).  A clear understanding of technology,
   encryption, and monitoring goals will aid in the development of
   solutions as work continues towards finding an appropriate balance
   that allows for management while protecting user privacy with strong
   encryption solutions.

2.  Network Service Provider Monitoring Practices

   Service providers, for this definition, include the backbone ISPs as
   well as those providing infrastructure at scale for core Internet use
   (hosted infrastructure and services such as email).

   Network service providers use various techniques to operate, manage,
   and secure their networks.  The following subsections detail the
   purpose of several techniques as well as which protocol fields are
   used to accomplish each task.  In response to increased encryption of
   these fields, some network service providers may be tempted to
   undertake undesirable security practices in order to gain access to
   the fields in unencrypted data flows.  To avoid this situation, new
   methods could be developed to accomplish the same goals without
   service providers having the ability to see session data.

2.1.  Passive Monitoring

2.1.1.  Traffic Surveys

   Internet traffic surveys are useful in many pursuits, such as input
   for studies of the Center for Applied Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA)
   [CAIDA], network planning, and optimization.  Tracking the trends in
   Internet traffic growth, from earlier peer-to-peer communication to
   the extensive adoption of unicast video streaming applications, has
   relied on a view of traffic composition with a particular level of
   assumed accuracy, based on access to cleartext by those conducting
   the surveys.

   Passive monitoring makes inferences about observed traffic using the
   maximal information available and is subject to inaccuracies stemming
   from incomplete sampling (of packets in a stream) or loss due to
   monitoring-system overload.  When encryption conceals more layers in
   each packet, reliance on pattern inferences and other heuristics
   grows and accuracy suffers.  For example, the traffic patterns
   between server and browser are dependent on browser supplier and

Top      ToC       Page 9 
   version, even when the sessions use the same server application
   (e.g., web email access).  It remains to be seen whether more complex
   inferences can be mastered to produce the same monitoring accuracy.

2.1.2.  Troubleshooting

   Network operators use protocol-dissecting analyzers when responding
   to customer problems, to identify the presence of attack traffic, and
   to identify root causes of the problem such as misconfiguration.  In
   limited cases, packet captures may also be used when a customer
   approves of access to their packets or provides packet captures close
   to the endpoint.  The protocol dissection is generally limited to
   supporting protocols (e.g., DNS and DHCP), network and transport
   (e.g., IP and TCP), and some higher-layer protocols (e.g., RTP and
   the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)).  Troubleshooting will move closer
   to the endpoint with increased encryption and adjustments in
   practices to effectively troubleshoot using a 5-tuple may require
   education.  Packet-loss investigations, and those where access is
   limited to a 2-tuple (IPsec tunnel mode), rely on network and
   transport-layer headers taken at the endpoint.  In this case,
   captures on intermediate nodes are not reliable as there are far too
   many cases of aggregate interfaces and alternate paths in service
   provider networks.

   Network operators are often the first ones called upon to investigate
   application problems (e.g., "my HD video is choppy"), to first rule
   out network and network services as a cause for the underlying issue.
   When diagnosing a customer problem, the starting point may be a
   particular application that isn't working.  The ability to identify
   the problem application's traffic is important, and packet capture
   provided from the customer close to the edge may be used for this
   purpose; IP address filtering is not useful for applications using
   Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) or cloud providers.  After
   identifying the traffic, an operator may analyze the traffic
   characteristics and routing of the traffic.  This diagnostic step is
   important to help determine the root cause before exploring if the
   issue is directly with the application.

   For example, by investigating packet loss (from TCP sequence and
   acknowledgement numbers), Round-Trip Time (RTT) (from TCP timestamp
   options or application-layer transactions, e.g., DNS or HTTP response
   time), TCP receive-window size, packet corruption (from checksum
   verification), inefficient fragmentation, or application-layer
   problems, the operator can narrow the problem to a portion of the
   network, server overload, client or server misconfiguration, etc.
   Network operators may also be able to identify the presence of attack

Top      ToC       Page 10 
   traffic as not conforming to the application the user claims to be
   using.  In many instances, the exposed packet header is sufficient
   for this type of troubleshooting.

   One way of quickly excluding the network as the bottleneck during
   troubleshooting is to check whether the speed is limited by the
   endpoints.  For example, the connection speed might instead be
   limited by suboptimal TCP options, the sender's congestion window,
   the sender temporarily running out of data to send, the sender
   waiting for the receiver to send another request, or the receiver
   closing the receive window.  All this information can be derived from
   the cleartext TCP header.

   Packet captures and protocol-dissecting analyzers have been important
   tools.  Automated monitoring has also been used to proactively
   identify poor network conditions, leading to maintenance and network
   upgrades before user experience declines.  For example, findings of
   loss and jitter in Voice over IP (VoIP) traffic can be a predictor of
   future customer dissatisfaction (supported by metadata from RTP/RTCP)
   [RFC3550], or increases in DNS response time can generally make
   interactive web browsing appear sluggish.  But, to detect such
   problems, the application or service stream must first be
   distinguished from others.

   When increased encryption is used, operators lose a source of data
   that may be used to debug user issues.  For example, IPsec obscures
   TCP and RTP header information, while TLS and the Secure Real-time
   Transport Protocol (SRTP) do not.  Because of this, application-
   server operators using increased encryption might be called upon more
   frequently to assist with debugging and troubleshooting; thus, they
   may want to consider what tools can be put in the hands of their
   clients or network operators.

   Further, the performance of some services can be more efficiently
   managed and repaired when information on user transactions is
   available to the service provider.  It may be possible to continue
   transaction-monitoring activities without cleartext access to the
   application layers of interest; however, inaccuracy will increase and
   efficiency of repair activities will decrease.  For example, an
   application-protocol error or failure would be opaque to network
   troubleshooters when transport encryption is applied, making root
   cause location more difficult and, therefore, increasing the time to
   repair.  Repair time directly reduces the availability of the
   service, and most network operators have made availability a key
   metric in their Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and/or subscription
   rebates.  Also, there may be more cases of user-communication
   failures when the additional encryption processes are introduced
   (e.g., key management at large scale), leading to more customer

Top      ToC       Page 11 
   service contacts and (at the same time) less information available to
   network-operation repair teams.

   In mobile networks, knowledge about TCP's stream transfer progress
   (by observing ACKs, retransmissions, packet drops, and the Sector
   Utilization Level, etc.) is further used to measure the performance
   of network segments (sector, eNodeB (eNB), etc.).  This information
   is used as key performance indicators (KPIs) and for the estimation
   of user/service key quality indicators at network edges for circuit
   emulation (CEM) as well as input for mitigation methods.  If the
   makeup of active services per user and per sector are not visible to
   a server that provides Internet Access Point Names (APNs), it cannot
   perform mitigation functions based on network segment view.

   It is important to note that the push for encryption by application
   providers has been motivated by the application of the described
   techniques.  Although network operators have noted performance
   improvements with network-based optimization or enhancement of user
   traffic (otherwise, deployment would not have occurred), application
   providers have likewise noted some degraded performance and/or user
   experience, and such cases may result in additional operator
   troubleshooting.  Further, encrypted application streams might avoid
   outdated optimization or enhancement techniques, where they exist.

   A gap exists for vendors where built-in diagnostics and
   serviceability are not adequate to provide detailed logging and
   debugging capabilities that, when possible, could be accessed with
   cleartext network parameters.  In addition to traditional logging and
   debugging methods, packet tracing and inspection along the service
   path provides operators the visibility to continue to diagnose
   problems reported both internally and by their customers.  Logging of
   service path upon exit for routing overlay protocols will assist with
   policy management and troubleshooting capabilities for traffic flows
   on encrypted networks.  Protocol trace logging and protocol data unit
   (PDU) logging should also be considered to improve visibility to
   monitor and troubleshoot application-level traffic.  Additional work
   on this gap would assist network operators to better troubleshoot and
   manage networks with increasing amounts of encrypted traffic.

2.1.3.  Traffic-Analysis Fingerprinting

   Fingerprinting is used in traffic analysis and monitoring to identify
   traffic streams that match certain patterns.  This technique can be
   used with both cleartext and encrypted sessions.  Some Distributed
   Denial-of-Service (DDoS) prevention techniques at the network-
   provider level rely on the ability to fingerprint traffic in order to
   mitigate the effect of this type of attack.  Thus, fingerprinting may
   be an aspect of an attack or part of attack countermeasures.

Top      ToC       Page 12 
   A common, early trigger for DDoS mitigation includes observing
   uncharacteristic traffic volumes or sources, congestion, or
   degradation of a given network or service.  One approach to mitigate
   such an attack involves distinguishing attacker traffic from
   legitimate user traffic.  The ability to examine layers and payloads
   above transport provides an increased range of filtering
   opportunities at each layer in the clear.  If fewer layers are in the
   clear, this means that there are reduced filtering opportunities
   available to mitigate attacks.  However, fingerprinting is still

   Passive monitoring of network traffic can lead to invasion of privacy
   by external actors at the endpoints of the monitored traffic.
   Encryption of traffic end to end is one method to obfuscate some of
   the potentially identifying information.  For example, browser
   fingerprints are comprised of many characteristics, including User
   Agents, HTTP Accept headers, browser plug-in details, screen size and
   color details, system fonts, and time zones.  A monitoring system
   could easily identify a specific browser, and by correlating other
   information, identify a specific user.

2.2.  Traffic Optimization and Management

2.2.1.  Load Balancers

   A standalone load balancer is a function one can take off the shelf,
   place in front of a pool of servers, and configure appropriately, and
   it will balance the traffic load among servers in the pool.  This is
   a typical setup for load balancers.  Standalone load balancers rely
   on the plainly observable information in the packets they are
   forwarding and industry-accepted standards in interpreting the
   plainly observable information.  Typically, this is a 5-tuple of the
   connection.  This type of configuration terminates TLS sessions at
   the load balancer, making it the endpoint instead of the server.
   Standalone load balancers are considered middleboxes, but they are an
   integral part of server infrastructure that scales.

   In contrast, an integrated load balancer is developed to be an
   integral part of the service provided by the server pool behind that
   load balancer.  These load balancers can communicate state with their
   pool of servers to better route flows to the appropriate servers.
   They rely on non-standard, system-specific information and
   operational knowledge shared between the load balancer and its

   Both standalone and integrated load balancers can be deployed in
   pools for redundancy and load sharing.  For high availability, it is
   important that when packets belonging to a flow start to arrive at a

Top      ToC       Page 13 
   different load balancer in the load-balancer pool, the packets
   continue to be forwarded to the original server in the server pool.
   The importance of this requirement increases as the chance of such a
   load balancer change event increases.

   Mobile operators deploy integrated load balancers to assist with
   maintaining connection state as devices migrate.  With the
   proliferation of mobile connected devices, there is an acute need for
   connection-oriented protocols that maintain connections after a
   network migration by an endpoint.  This connection persistence
   provides an additional challenge for multihomed anycast-based
   services typically employed by large content owners and CDNs.  The
   challenge is that a migration to a different network in the middle of
   the connection greatly increases the chances of the packets routed to
   a different anycast point of presence (POP) due to the new network's
   different connectivity and Internet peering arrangements.  The load
   balancer in the new POP, potentially thousands of miles away, will
   not have information about the new flow and would not be able to
   route it back to the original POP.

   To help with the endpoint network migration challenges, anycast
   service operations are likely to employ integrated load balancers
   that, in cooperation with their pool servers, are able to ensure that
   client-to-server packets contain some additional identification in
   plainly observable parts of the packets (in addition to the 5-tuple).
   As noted in Section 2 of [RFC7258], careful consideration in protocol
   design to mitigate pervasive monitoring is important, while ensuring
   manageability of the network.

   An area for further research includes end-to-end solutions that would
   provide a simpler architecture and that may solve the issue with CDN
   anycast.  In this case, connections would be migrated to a CDN
   unicast address.

   Current protocols, such as TCP, allow the development of stateless
   integrated load balancers by availing such load balancers of
   additional plaintext information in client-to-server packets.  In
   case of TCP, such information can be encoded by having server-
   generated sequence numbers (that are ACKed by the client), segment
   values, lengths of the packet sent, etc.  The use of some of these
   mechanisms for load balancing negates some of the security
   assumptions associated with those primitives (e.g., that an off-path
   attacker guessing valid sequence numbers for a flow is hard).
   Another possibility is a dedicated mechanism for storing load-
   balancer state, such as QUIC's proposed connection ID to provide
   visibility to the load balancer.  An identifier could be used for
   tracking purposes, but this may provide an option that is an
   improvement from bolting it on to an unrelated transport signal.

Top      ToC       Page 14 
   This method allows for tight control by one of the endpoints and can
   be rotated to avoid roving client linkability: in other words, being
   a specific, separate signal, it can be governed in a way that is
   finely targeted at that specific use case.

   Some integrated load balancers have the ability to use additional
   plainly observable information even for today's protocols that are
   not network-migration tolerant.  This additional information allows
   for improved availability and scalability of the load-balancing
   operation.  For example, BGP reconvergence can cause a flow to switch
   anycast POPs, even without a network change by any endpoint.
   Additionally, a system that is able to encode the identity of the
   pool server in plaintext information available in each incoming
   packet is able to provide stateless load balancing.  This ability
   confers great reliability and scalability advantages, even if the
   flow remains in a single POP, because the load-balancing system is
   not required to keep state of each flow.  Even more importantly,
   there's no requirement to continuously synchronize such state among
   the pool of load balancers.  An integrated load balancer repurposing
   limited existing bits in transport-flow state must maintain and
   synchronize per-flow state occasionally: using the sequence number as
   a cookie only works for so long given that there aren't that many
   bits available to divide across a pool of machines.

   Mobile operators apply 3GPP Self-Organizing Networks (SONs) for
   intelligent workflows such as content-aware Mobility Load Balancing
   (MLB).  Where network load balancers have been configured to route
   according to application-layer semantics, an encrypted payload is
   effectively invisible.  This has resulted in practices of
   intercepting TLS in front of load balancers to regain that
   visibility, but at a cost to security and privacy.

   In future Network Function Virtualization (NFV) architectures, load-
   balancing functions are likely to be more prevalent (deployed at
   locations throughout operators' networks).  NFV environments will
   require some type of identifier (IPv6 flow identifiers, the proposed
   QUIC connection ID, etc.) for managing traffic using encrypted
   tunnels.  The shift to increased encryption will have an impact on
   visibility of flow information and will require adjustments to
   perform similar load-balancing functions within an NFV.

2.2.2.  Differential Treatment Based on Deep Packet Inspection (DPI)

   Data transfer capacity resources in cellular radio networks tend to
   be more constrained than in fixed networks.  This is a result of
   variance in radio signal strength as a user moves around a cell, the
   rapid ingress and egress of connections as users hand off between
   adjacent cells, and temporary congestion at a cell.  Mobile networks

Top      ToC       Page 15 
   alleviate this by queuing traffic according to its required bandwidth
   and acceptable latency: for example, a user is unlikely to notice a
   20 ms delay when receiving a simple web page or email, or an instant
   message response, but will very likely notice a rebuffering pause in
   a video playback or a VoIP call de-jitter buffer.  Ideally, the
   scheduler manages the queue so that each user has an acceptable
   experience as conditions vary, but inferences of the traffic type
   have been used to make bearer assignments and set scheduler priority.

   Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) allows identification of applications
   based on payload signatures, in contrast to trusting well-known port
   numbers.  Application- and transport-layer encryption make the
   traffic type estimation more complex and less accurate; therefore, it
   may not be effectual to use this information as input for queue
   management.  With the use of WebSockets [RFC6455], for example, many
   forms of communications (from isochronous/real-time to bulk/elastic
   file transfer) will take place over HTTP port 80 or port 443, so only
   the messages and higher-layer data will make application
   differentiation possible.  If the monitoring system sees only "HTTP
   port 443", it cannot distinguish application streams that would
   benefit from priority queuing from others that would not.

   Mobile networks especially rely on content-/application-based
   prioritization of Over-the-Top (OTT) services -- each application
   type or service has different delay/loss/throughput expectations, and
   each type of stream will be unknown to an edge device if encrypted.
   This impedes dynamic QoS adaptation.  An alternate way to achieve
   encrypted application separation is possible when the User Equipment
   (UE) requests a dedicated bearer for the specific application stream
   (known by the UE), using a mechanism such as the one described in
   Section 6.5 of 3GPP TS 24.301 [TS3GPP].  The UE's request includes
   the Quality Class Indicator (QCI) appropriate for each application,
   based on their different delay/loss/throughput expectations.
   However, UE requests for dedicated bearers and QCI may not be
   supported at the subscriber's service level, or in all mobile

   These effects and potential alternative solutions have been discussed
   at the accord BoF [ACCORD] at IETF 95.

   This section does not consider traffic discrimination by service
   providers related to Net Neutrality, where traffic may be favored
   according to the service provider's preference as opposed to the
   user's preference.  These use cases are considered out of scope for
   this document as controversial practices.

Top      ToC       Page 16 
2.2.3.  Network-Congestion Management

   For 3GPP User Plane Congestion Management (UPCON) [UPCON], the
   ability to understand content and manage networks during periods of
   congestion is the focus.  Mitigating techniques such as deferred
   download, off-peak acceleration, and outbound roamers are a few
   examples of the areas explored in the associated 3GPP documents.  The
   documents describe the issues, describe the data utilized in managing
   congestion, and make policy recommendations.

2.2.4.  Performance-Enhancing Proxies

   Performance-enhancing TCP proxies may perform local retransmission at
   the network edge; this also applies to mobile networks.  In TCP,
   duplicated ACKs are detected and potentially concealed when the proxy
   retransmits a segment that was lost on the mobile link without
   involvement of the far end (see Section 2.1.1 of [RFC3135] and
   Section 3.5 of [MIDDLEBOXES]).

   Operators report that this optimization at network edges improves
   real-time transmission over long-delay Internet paths or networks
   with large capacity variation (such as mobile/cellular networks).
   However, such optimizations can also cause problems with performance,
   for example, if the characteristics of some packet streams begin to
   vary significantly from those considered in the proxy design.

   In general, some operators have stated that performance-enhancing
   proxies have a lower RTT to the client; therefore, they determine the
   responsiveness of flow control.  A lower RTT makes the flow-control
   loop more responsive to changes in the mobile-network conditions and
   enables faster adaptation in a delay- and capacity-varying network
   due to user mobility.

   Further, some use service-provider-operated proxies to reduce the
   control delay between the sender and a receiver on a mobile network
   where resources are limited.  The RTT determines how quickly a user's
   attempt to cancel a video is recognized and, therefore, how quickly
   the traffic is stopped, thus keeping unwanted video packets from
   entering the radio-scheduler queue.  If impacted by encryption,
   performance-enhancing proxies could make use of routing overlay
   protocols to accomplish the same task, but this results in additional

   An application-type-aware network edge (middlebox) can further
   control pacing, limit simultaneous HD videos, or prioritize active
   videos against new videos, etc.  Services at this more granular level
   are limited with the use of encryption.

Top      ToC       Page 17 
   Performance-enhancing proxies are primarily used on long-delay links
   (satellite) with access to the TCP header to provide an early ACK and
   make the long-delay link of the path seem shorter.  With some
   specific forms of flow control, TCP can be more efficient than
   alternatives such as proxies.  The editors cannot cite research on
   this point specific to the performance-enhancing proxies described,
   but they agree this area could be explored to determine if flow-
   control modifications could preserve the end-to-end performance on
   long-delay path sessions where the TCP header is exposed.

2.2.5.  Caching and Content Replication near the Network Edge

   The features and efficiency of some Internet services can be
   augmented through analysis of user flows and the applications they
   provide.  For example, network caching of popular content at a
   location close to the requesting user can improve delivery efficiency
   (both in terms of lower request response times and reduced use of
   links on the international Internet when content is remotely
   located), and service providers through an authorized agreement
   acting on their behalf use DPI in combination with content-
   distribution networks to determine if they can intervene effectively.
   Encryption of packet contents at a given protocol layer usually makes
   DPI processing of that layer and higher layers impossible.  That
   being said, it should be noted that some content providers prevent
   caching to control content delivery through the use of encrypted
   end-to-end sessions.  CDNs vary in their deployment options of end-
   to-end encryption.  The business risk of losing control of content is
   a motivation outside of privacy and pervasive monitoring that is
   driving end-to-end encryption for these content providers.

   It should be noted that caching was first supported in [RFC1945] and
   continued in the recent update of "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
   (HTTP/1.1): Caching" [RFC7234].  Some operators also operate
   transparent caches that neither the user nor the origin opt-in.  The
   use of these caches is controversial within the IETF and is generally
   precluded by the use of HTTPS.

   Content replication in caches (for example, live video and content
   protected by Digital Rights Management (DRM)) is used to most
   efficiently utilize the available limited bandwidth and thereby
   maximize the user's Quality of Experience (QoE).  Especially in
   mobile networks, duplicating every stream through the transit network
   increases backhaul cost for live TV. 3GPP Enhanced Multimedia
   Broadcast/Multicast Services (eMBMS) utilize trusted edge proxies to
   facilitate delivering the same stream to different users, using
   either unicast or multicast depending on channel conditions to the
   user.  There are ongoing efforts to support multicast inside carrier
   networks while preserving end-to-end security: Automatic Multicast

Top      ToC       Page 18 
   Tunneling (AMT), for instance, allows CDNs to deliver a single
   (potentially encrypted) copy of a live stream to a carrier network
   over the public Internet and for the carrier to then distribute that
   live stream as efficiently as possible within its own network using

   Alternate approaches are in the early phase of being explored to
   allow caching of encrypted content.  These solutions require
   cooperation from content owners and fall outside the scope of what is
   covered in this document.  Content delegation allows for replication
   with possible benefits, but any form of delegation has the potential
   to affect the expectation of client-server confidentiality.

2.2.6.  Content Compression

   In addition to caching, various applications exist to provide data
   compression in order to conserve the life of the user's mobile data
   plan or make delivery over the mobile link more efficient.  The
   compression proxy access can be built into a specific user-level
   application, such as a browser, or it can be available to all
   applications using a system-level application.  The primary method is
   for the mobile application to connect to a centralized server as a
   transparent proxy (user does not opt-in), with the data channel
   between the client application and the server using compression to
   minimize bandwidth utilization.  The effectiveness of such systems
   depends on the server having access to unencrypted data flows.

   Aggregated data stream content compression that spans objects and
   data sources that can be treated as part of a unified compression
   scheme (e.g., through the use of a shared segment store) is often
   effective at providing data offload when there is a network element
   close to the receiver that has access to see all the content.

2.2.7.  Service Function Chaining

   Service Function Chaining (SFC) is defined in RFC 7665 [RFC7665] and
   RFC 8300 [RFC8300].  As discussed in RFC 7498 [RFC7498], common SFC
   deployments may use classifiers to direct traffic into VLANs instead
   of using a Network Service Header (NSH), as defined in RFC 8300
   [RFC8300].  As described in RFC 7665 [RFC7665], the ordered steering
   of traffic to support specific optimizations depends upon the ability
   of a classifier to determine the microflows.  RFC 2474 [RFC2474]
   defines the following:

      Microflow: a single instance of an application-to-application flow
      of packets which is identified by source address, destination
      address, protocol id, and source port, destination port (where

Top      ToC       Page 19 
   SFC currently depends upon a classifier to at least identify the
   microflow.  As the classifier's visibility is reduced from a 5-tuple
   to a 2-tuple, or if information above the transport layer becomes
   inaccessible, then the SFC classifier is not able to perform its job,
   and the service functions of the path may be adversely affected.

   There are also mechanisms provided to protect security and privacy.
   In the SFC case, the layer below a network service header can be
   protected with session encryption.  A goal is protecting end-user
   data, while retaining the intended functions of RFC 7665 [RFC7665] at
   the same time.

2.3.  Content Filtering, Network Access, and Accounting

   Mobile networks and many ISPs operate under the regulations of their
   licensing government authority.  These regulations include Lawful
   Intercept, adherence to Codes of Practice on content filtering, and
   application of court order filters.  Such regulations assume network
   access to provide content filtering and accounting, as discussed
   below.  As previously stated, the intent of this document is to
   document existing practices; the development of IETF protocols
   follows the guiding principles of [RFC1984] and [RFC2804] and
   explicitly does not support tools and methods that could be used for
   wiretapping and censorship.

2.3.1.  Content Filtering

   There are numerous reasons why service providers might block content:
   to comply with requests from law enforcement or regulatory
   authorities, to effectuate parental controls, to enforce content-
   based billing, or for other reasons, possibly considered
   inappropriate by some.  See RFC 7754 [RFC7754] for a survey of
   Internet filtering techniques and motivations and the IAB consensus
   on those mechanisms.  This section is intended to document a
   selection of current content-blocking practices by operators and the
   effects of encryption on those practices.  Content blocking may also
   happen at endpoints or at the edge of enterprise networks, but those
   scenarios are not addressed in this section.

   In a mobile network, content filtering usually occurs in the core
   network.  With other networks, content filtering could occur in the
   core network or at the edge.  A proxy is installed that analyzes the
   transport metadata of the content users are viewing and filters
   content based on either a blacklist of sites or the user's predefined
   profile (e.g., for age-sensitive content).  Although filtering can be
   done by many methods, one commonly used method involves a trigger
   based on the proxy identifying a DNS lookup of a host name in a URL
   that appears on a blacklist being used by the operator.  The

Top      ToC       Page 20 
   subsequent requests to that domain will be rerouted to a proxy that
   checks whether the full URL matches a blocked URL on the list, and it
   will return a 404 if a match is found.  All other requests should
   complete.  This technique does not work in situations where DNS
   traffic is encrypted (e.g., by employing [RFC7858]).  This method is
   also used by other types of network providers enabling traffic
   inspection, but not modification.

   Content filtering via a proxy can also utilize an intercepting
   certificate where the client's session is terminated at the proxy
   enabling for cleartext inspection of the traffic.  A new session is
   created from the intercepting device to the client's destination;
   this is an opt-in strategy for the client, where the endpoint is
   configured to trust the intercepting certificate.  Changes to TLS 1.3
   do not impact this more invasive method of interception, which has
   the potential to expose every HTTPS session to an active man in the
   middle (MITM).

   Another form of content filtering is called parental control, where
   some users are deliberately denied access to age-sensitive content as
   a feature to the service subscriber.  Some sites involve a mixture of
   universal and age-sensitive content and filtering software.  In these
   cases, more-granular (application-layer) metadata may be used to
   analyze and block traffic.  Methods that accessed cleartext
   application-layer metadata no longer work when sessions are
   encrypted.  This type of granular filtering could occur at the
   endpoint or as a proxy service.  However, the lack of ability to
   efficiently manage endpoints as a service reduces network service
   providers' ability to offer parental control.

2.3.2.  Network Access and Data Usage

   Approved access to a network is a prerequisite to requests for
   Internet traffic.

   However, there are cases (beyond parental control) when a network
   service provider currently redirects customer requests for content
   (affecting content accessibility):

   1.  The network service provider is performing the accounting and
       billing for the content provider, and the customer has not (yet)
       purchased the requested content.

   2.  Further content may not be allowed as the customer has reached
       their usage limit and needs to purchase additional data service,
       which is the usual billing approach in mobile networks.

Top      ToC       Page 21 
   Currently, some network service providers redirect the customer using
   HTTP redirect to a captive portal page that explains to those
   customers the reason for the blockage and the steps to proceed.
   [RFC6108] describes one viable web notification system.  When the
   HTTP headers and content are encrypted, this appropriately prevents
   mobile carriers from intercepting the traffic and performing an HTTP
   redirect.  As a result, some mobile carriers block customer's
   encrypted requests, which impacts customer experience because the
   blocking reason must be conveyed by some other means.  The customer
   may need to call customer care to find out the reason and/or resolve
   the issue, possibly extending the time needed to restore their
   network access.  While there are well-deployed alternate SMS-based
   solutions that do not involve out-of-specification protocol
   interception, this is still an unsolved problem for non-SMS users.

   Further, when the requested service is about to consume the remainder
   of the user's plan limits, the transmission could be terminated and
   advance notifications may be sent to the user by their service
   provider to warn the user ahead of the exhausted plan.  If web
   content is encrypted, the network provider cannot know the data
   transfer size at request time.  Lacking this visibility of the
   application type and content size, the network would continue the
   transmission and stop the transfer when the limit was reached.  A
   partial transfer may not be usable by the client wasting both network
   and user resources, possibly leading to customer complaints.  The
   content provider does not know a user's service plans or current
   usage and cannot warn the user of plan exhaustion.

   In addition, some mobile network operators sell tariffs that allow
   free-data access to certain sites, known as 'zero rating'.  A session
   to visit such a site incurs no additional cost or data usage to the
   user.  For some implementations, zero rating is impacted if
   encryption hides the details of the content domain from the network.

2.3.3.  Application Layer Gateways (ALGs)

   Application Layer Gateways (ALGs) assist applications to set
   connectivity across Network Address Translators (NATs), firewalls,
   and/or load balancers for specific applications running across mobile
   networks.  Section 2.9 of [RFC2663] describes the role of ALGs and
   their interaction with NAT and/or application payloads.  ALGs are
   deployed with an aim to improve connectivity.  However, it is an IETF
   best common practice recommendation that ALGs for UDP-based protocols
   be turned off [RFC4787].

Top      ToC       Page 22 
   One example of an ALG in current use is aimed at video applications
   that use the Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) [RFC7826] primary
   stream as a means to identify related RTP/RTCP [RFC3550] flows at
   setup.  The ALG in this case relies on the 5-tuple flow information
   derived from RTSP to provision NAT or other middleboxes and provide
   connectivity.  Implementations vary, and two examples follow:

   1.  Parse the content of the RTSP stream and identify the 5-tuple of
       the supporting streams as they are being negotiated.

   2.  Intercept and modify the 5-tuple information of the supporting
       media streams as they are being negotiated on the RTSP stream,
       which is more intrusive to the media streams.

   When RTSP-stream content is encrypted, the 5-tuple information within
   the payload is not visible to these ALG implementations; therefore,
   they cannot provision their associated middleboxes with that

   The deployment of IPv6 may well reduce the need for NAT and the
   corresponding requirement for ALGs.

2.3.4.  HTTP Header Insertion

   Some mobile carriers use HTTP header insertion (see Section 3.2.1 of
   [RFC7230]) to provide information about their customers to third
   parties or to their own internal systems [Enrich].  Third parties use
   the inserted information for analytics, customization, advertising,
   cross-site tracking of users, customer billing, or selectively
   allowing or blocking content.  HTTP header insertion is also used to
   pass information internally between a mobile service provider's
   sub-systems, thus keeping the internal systems loosely coupled.  When
   HTTP connections are encrypted to protect user privacy, mobile
   network service providers cannot insert headers to accomplish the,
   sometimes considered controversial, functions above.

   Guidance from the Internet Architecture Board has been provided in
   "Design Considerations for Metadata Insertion" [RFC8165].  The
   guidance asserts that designs that share metadata only by explicit
   actions at the host are preferable to designs in which middleboxes
   insert metadata.  Alternate notification methods that follow this and
   other guidance would be helpful to mobile carriers.

Next Section