[tor-commits] [torspec/master] Add proposal 325-packed-relay-cells.md

[nickm at torproject.org]

commit 3997e7a8a5a6ff0cf5b7cdce5f850a59abc12162
Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm at torproject.org>
Date:   Fri Jul 10 13:51:21 2020 -0400

    Add proposal 325-packed-relay-cells.md
---
 proposals/000-index.txt             |   2 +
 proposals/325-packed-relay-cells.md | 145 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 147 insertions(+)

diff --git a/proposals/000-index.txt b/proposals/000-index.txt
index 3ddeccd..86f2a16 100644
--- a/proposals/000-index.txt
+++ b/proposals/000-index.txt
@@ -245,6 +245,7 @@ Proposals by number:
 322  Extending link specifiers to include the directory port [OPEN]
 323  Specification for Walking Onions [DRAFT]
 324  RTT-based Congestion Control for Tor [OPEN]
+325  Packed relay cells: saving space on small commands [DRAFT]
 
 
 Proposals by status:
@@ -263,6 +264,7 @@ Proposals by status:
    313  Tor Relay IPv6 Statistics
    316  FlashFlow: A Secure Speed Test for Tor (Parent Proposal)
    323  Specification for Walking Onions
+   325  Packed relay cells: saving space on small commands
  NEEDS-REVISION:
    212  Increase Acceptable Consensus Age [for 0.2.4.x+]
    219  Support for full DNS and DNSSEC resolution in Tor [for 0.2.5.x]
diff --git a/proposals/325-packed-relay-cells.md b/proposals/325-packed-relay-cells.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..455e7a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/proposals/325-packed-relay-cells.md
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+```
+Filename: 325-packed-relay-cells.md
+Title: Packed relay cells: saving space on small commands
+Author: Nick Mathewson
+Created: 10 July 2020
+Status: Draft
+```
+
+# Introduction
+
+In proposal 319 I suggested a way to fragment long commands across
+multiple RELAY cells.  In this proposal, I suggest a new format for
+RELAY cells that can be used to pack multiple relay commands into a
+single cell.
+
+Why would we want to do this?  As we move towards improved
+congestion-control and flow-control algorithms, we might not want to
+use an entire 498-byte relay payload just to send a one-byte
+flow-control message.
+
+We already have some cases where we'd benefit from this feature.
+For example, when we send SENDME messages, END cells, or BEGIN_DIR
+cells, most of the cell body is wasted with padding.
+
+As a side benefit, packing cells in this way may make the job of the
+traffic analyst a little more tricky, as cell contents become less
+predictable.
+
+# The basic design
+
+Let's use the term "Relay Message" to mean the kind of thing that a
+relay cell used to hold.  Thus, this proposal is about packing
+multiple "Relay Messages" in to a cell.
+
+I'll use "Packed relay cell" to mean a relay cell in this new
+format, that supports multiple messages.
+
+I'll use "client" to mean the initiator of a circuit, and "relay" to
+refer to the parties through who a circuit is created.  Note that
+each "relay" (as used here) may be the "client" on circuits of its own.
+
+When a relay supports relay message packing, it advertises the fact
+using a new Relay protocol version.  Clients must opt-in to using
+this protocol version (see XXX below) before they can send any
+packed relay cells, and before the relay will send them any packed
+relay cells.
+
+When packed cells are in use, multiple cell messages can be
+concatenated in a single relay cell.
+
+Only some relay commands are supported for relay cell packing,
+listed here:
+      - SENDME
+      - DROP
+      - DATA
+      - BEGIN
+      - BEGIN_DIR
+      - END
+      - CONNECTED
+      - PADDING_NEGOTIATE
+      - PADDING_NEGOTIATED
+
+If any relay message with a relay command _not_ listed above appears
+in a packed relay cell with another relay message, then the
+receiving party MUST tear down the circuit.
+
+(Note that relay cell fragments (proposal 319) are not supported for
+packing.)
+
+The command byte "0" is now used to explicitly indicate "end of
+cell".  If the byte "0" appears after a relay message, the rest of
+the cell MUST be ignored.
+
+When generating RELAY cells, implementations SHOULD (as they do
+today) fill in the unused bytes with four 0-valued bytes, followed by
+a sequence of random bytes up to the end of the cell.  If there are
+fewer than 4 unused bytes at the end of the cell, those unused bytes
+should all be filled with 0-valued bytes.
+
+# Negotiation and migration
+
+After receiving a packed relay cell, the relay know that the client
+supports this proposal: Relays SHOULD send packed relay
+cells on any circuit on which they have received a packed relay
+cell.  Relays MUST NOT send packed relay cells otherwise.
+
+Clients, in turn, MAY send packed relay cells to any relay whose
+"Relay" subprotocol version indicates that it supports this
+protocol.  To avoid fingerprinting, this client behavior should
+controlled with a tristate (1/0/auto) torrc configuration value,
+with the default set to use a consensus parameter.
+
+The parameter is:
+
+    "relay-cell-packing"
+
+    Boolean: if 1, clients should send packed relay cells.
+    (Min: 0, Max 1, Default: 0)
+
+To handle migration, first the parameter should be set to 0 and the
+configuration setting should be "auto".  To test the feature, individual
+clients can set the tristate to "1".
+
+Once enough clients have support for the parameter, the parameter
+can be set to 1.
+
+
+# A new relay message format
+
+(This section is optional and should be considered separately; we
+may decide it is too complex.)
+
+Currently, every relay message uses 5 bytes of header to hold a
+relay command, a length field, and a stream ID.  This is wasteful:
+the stream ID is often redundant, and the top 7 bits of the length
+field are always zero.
+
+I propose a new relay message format, described here (with `ux`
+denoting an x-bit bitfield).  This format is 2 bytes or 4 bytes,
+depending on its first bit.
+
+    struct relay_header {
+       u1 stream_id_included; // Is the stream_id included?
+       u6 relay_command; // as before
+       u9 relay_data_len; // as before
+       u8 optional_stream_id[]; // 0 bytes or two bytes.
+    }
+
+Alternatively, you can view the first three fields as a 16-bit
+value, computed as:
+
+    (stream_id_included<<15) | (relay_command << 9) | (relay_data_len).
+
+If the optional_stream_id field is not present, then the default
+value for the stream_id is computed as follows.  We use stream_id 0
+for any command that doesn't take a stream ID.  For commands that
+_do_ take a steam_id, we use whichever nonzero stream_id appeared
+last in this cell.
+
+This format limits the space of possible relay commands.  That's
+probably okay: after 20 years of Tor development, we have defined 25
+relay command values.  But in case 2^6==64 commands will not be
+enough, we reserve command values 48 through 63 for future formats
+that need more command bits.
+