| Internet-Draft | tcp-service-affinity-option | October 2025 |
| Wang, et al. | Expires 20 April 2026 | [Page] |
This draft proposes a service affinity solution between client and server based on Transport Layer Security (TLS). An extension to Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 to enable session migration. This mechanism is designed for modern network architectures, particularly for multi-homed servers that possess multiple network interfaces and IP addresses.¶
Comparing to the existing solutions such as maintaining the customer-based connection status table in network devices, HTTP redirection and DNS redirection, this solution can avoid the waste of resources caused by saving a large amount of customer status data in the network devices, and realize the optimized scheduling of resources based on network conditions and computing resources in the computing-aware traffic steering scenario, so as to realize the reasonable operation of network resources, cloud resources and computing resources.¶
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 https://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 20 April 2026.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The rapidly increasing number of customers and service requirements require more flexible, fast-response network. The increasing of the number of edge cloud pools makes a service can be deployed in many different resource pools, which needs the network to provide the capability to steer customer traffic to the optimal service node. Computing-Aware Traffic Steering (CATS) Working Group is proposed to make the network edge steer traffic between clients of a service and sites offering the service more quickly, flexibly and smoothly. [I-D.ietf-cats-usecases-requirements] describes the problem statement, use-cases and requirements of CATS.¶
Due to the computing resource is deployed in edge clouds/sites, a service can be provided by different service nodes that use the same anycast IP address. The anycast IP address and the status of computing resource in each service node should be broadcast to the whole network. At the beginning, a customer establishes a TLS session with a service node. When the network status changes, the service node may no longer be able to ensure customer experience. It is necessary to disconnect the TLS session between the customer and the service node, and establish a TLS session between the customer and another service node that can provide the best customer experience.¶
A simplified CATS scenario is shown in Figure 1. Customer A and customer B want to access the same service. For customer A, the packet will firstly be transmitted to the corresponding anycast IP address. The ingress will determine the optimal service node for customer A based on the access cost, computing resources of each service node, and the scheduled computing resource scheduling algorithm. Similar processing will be performed when customer B accesses the same service.¶
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Anycast IP/IP4 |
| +------------+ |
| |Service node| |
| +-----+------+ |
| | |
| +----+-----+ |
| | R4 | |
| +-------------+ Egress +------------+ |
| | +----------+ | |
| | | Anycast IP/IP3 |
+----+-----+ +----+-----+ +------------+ |
A -+ R1 | | R3 +--+Service node| |
B -+ Ingress +--------------------------+ Egress | +------------+ |
+----+-----+ +----+-----+ |
| | | |
| | +----------+ | |
| +--------------+ R2 +-----------+ |
| | Egress | |
| +----+-----+ |
| | |
| +-----+------+ |
| |Service node| |
| +------------+ |
| Anycast IP/IP2 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: The Computing-Aware Traffic Steering (CATS) scenario
¶
As the network status and computing resources are constantly changing, different customers may be scheduled to different service nodes when accessing the same service. For customers who have established connections, the service node providing services must remain unchanged. Otherwise, a large number of state synchronization between service nodes are required to maintain the consistency of application data in the process of two-way connection communication.¶
The traditional solutions have two main methods:¶
Maintain the customer-based connection status table in each router along the path. This table will not change dynamically with the change of network status and computing resources, so that the subsequent packets will be transmitted along the same path.¶
Maintain the customer-based connection status table in ingress and egress routers. The packets need to be forwarded through tunnels on the intermediate routers.¶
The above solutions based on the connection status table are lack of flexibility and extensibility. The network devices should keep large amounts of status table to keep the service affinity for every customer flow. For large-scale service deployment, if the network status changes, it is easy to affect the customer experience.¶
Besides, in the load balance scenario, a load balancer is usually put in front of all the physical servers so that all the packets sent and received by the physical servers should pass through the load balancer. This deployment may lead to the load balancer become the bottleneck when the traffic increases. Direct traffic redirection and traffic scheduling between the client and server can avoid the bottleneck of load balancer.¶
HTTP redirection enables automatic page jumps by having the browser automatically send a new request based on the specific response status code and the value of the Location field returned by the server. It mainly involve the communication between client and server. Both client and server do not perceive changes in network status and cannot achieve comprehensive optimization based on network status and computing resource status.¶
DNS redirection can redirect customer requests from one domain name to another by modifying DNS resolution records, or change the resolution result of a domain name to point to a different server IP address. However, due to the caching time of DNS records, it takes some time for the modification to take effect, which may result in customers still accessing servers that have been taken offline, thereby affecting customer experience.¶
We propose a solution for the service affinity between client and server by extending TLS 1.3. This proposal is designed for environments where operational simplicity and migration speed are paramount. It intentionally omits the path validation step found in protocols like QUIC [RFC9000] to minimize the latency of the migration process. Furthermore, it simplifies the trigger mechanism by using a new TLS alert, which is a direct and unambiguous signal. This design choice makes the protocol best suited for deployments within trusted network boundaries where the client population is known and the risk of IP address spoofing is considered low or is mitigated by external network controls.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] .¶
The message flow of the procedures of service affinity mechanism based on TLS are shown in Figure 2.¶
3.2 Initial handshake and token issuance
Client Server (IP A)
ClientHello
(empty migration_support extension) -------->
ServerHello
Certificate*
ServerKeyExchange*
CertificateRequest*
<-------- ServerHelloDone
Certificate*
ClientKeyExchange
CertificateVerify*
[ChangeCipherSpec]
Finished -------->
NewSessionTicket
(MAY include migration_token
with target IP B)
[ChangeCipherSpec]
Finished -------->
Application Data <-------> Application Data
3.3 (a) Client initiated:
Client Server (IP A)
(terminates connection to IP A)-------->
3.3 (b) Server initiated:
Client Server (IP A)
<-------- migrate_notify (alert, no payload)
(terminates connection to IP A)-------->
3.4 Reconnection and resumption
Client Server (IP B)
ClientHello (to IP B)
(includes pre_shared_key
and migration_token extensions) -------->
(verifies MigrationToken:
signature, expiry, nonce, session binding)
ServerHello
NewSessionTicket*
[ChangeCipherSpec]
<-------- Finished
[ChangeCipherSpec]
Finished -------->
Application Data <-------> Application Data
Figure 2: service affinity mechanism based on TLS
¶
1. A client supporting this mechanism includes the `migration_support` extension in its initial `ClientHello` message to the server at IP A. This extension is empty and serves only to signal capability.¶
2. The server at IP A completes a standard TLS 1.3 handshake.¶
3. After the handshake is complete, the server sends a `NewSessionTicket` message to enable standard Pre-Shared Key-based (PSK-based) session resumption. Within this message, the server MAY include the new `migration_token` extension. This extension contains the `MigrationToken`, an authorization credential that includes the pre-determined destination (IP B) for a future migration.¶
a) If the session migration is triggered by the client, the client can directly switch the session to the new server according to business requirements.¶
b) If the session migration is triggered by the server, it performs as follow:¶
1. At a later point, the server at IP A initiates the migration.¶
2. The server sends a new TLS alert, `migrate_notify`, over the encrypted and authenticated connection. This alert has no payload and serves as a simple, direct instruction for the client to initiate the migration process.¶
1. The client inspect its stored `MigrationToken`. If a valid token exists, it extracts the target IP address and port, terminates its connection to IP A, and initiates a new TLS connection to IP B.¶
2. The client sends a `ClientHello` message to IP B. This message MUST include:¶
The standard `pre_shared_key` extension, containing the session ticket identity received from IP A.¶
The `migration_token` extension, containing the `MigrationToken` it received from IP A.¶
3. The server at IP B uses the PSK identity to retrieve the session state. It then MUST validate the `MigrationToken`, confirming its signature, expiration, and nonce, and verifying that the token is cryptographically bound to the session.¶
4. If all checks pass, the server accepts the PSK and completes the abbreviated handshake.¶
The scenario is shown as Figure 1, and the transmission process of packets is shown in Figure 3.¶
When customer A accesses to the service, it presents the following steps:¶
Step 1: Customer A access to the service. It sends a initial `ClientHello` message which includes the `migration_support` extension to R1. The destination address of this packet is set to the anycast IP address of this service (IPs).¶
Step 2: R1 schedules the customer A's service connection request according to the real-time status of the network and computing resources, and determine that the server (IP address = IP4) will provide services to customer A.¶
Step 3: the server completes a standard TLS 1.3 handshake.¶
Step 4: the server sends a `NewSessionTicket` message to enable standard PSK-based session resumption. It carry the `MigrationToken`, an authorization credential that refers to IP4.¶
Step 5: customer A re-establishes the connection to server through IP4.¶
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+
|Customer A| | R1 | |server(IP4|
+-----+----+ +-----+----+ +-----+----+
| Step 1(IPs) | Step 2: (IPs) |
|------------>|------------------------------>|
| Step 3: A standard TLS 1.3 handshake |
|<------------------------------------------->|
| Step 4: NewSessionTicket(MigrationToken) |
|<--------------------------------------------|
| Step 5(IP4) |
|-------------------------------------------->|
| |
Figure 3: Procedures for the service affinity solution
¶
In the whole process, devices in the network only need to broadcast the information of the computing network <Anycast IP Address, Service node Status>, and perform optimized scheduling of computing network resources according to this information.¶
This section defines the structure of the new protocol elements, following the presentation language of [RFC8446].¶
This extension is sent in the `ClientHello` to indicate support for this protocol. The `extension_data` field of this extension is zero- length.¶
struct { } MigrationSupport;
¶
This extension is sent in the `NewSessionTicket` message and contains the `MigrationToken` structure. It is also sent by the client in the `ClientHello` during a migration attempt.¶
MigrationToken migration_token;¶
The `MigrationToken` is a credential that authorizes the migration of a specific session to a pre-determined destination.¶
enum { ipv4(0), ipv6(1) } IPAddressType;
struct {
IPAddressType type;
select (IPAddress.type) {
case ipv4: uint8 ipv4_address[4];
case ipv6: uint8 ipv6_address[16];
};
uint16 port;
} IPAddress;
struct {
IPAddress target_address;
opaque session_id<32..255>;
uint64 expiry_timestamp;
opaque nonce<16..255>;
opaque signature<32..255>;
} MigrationToken;
¶
Where:¶
target_address: An `IPAddress` structure specifying the destination IP address (v4 or v6) and port for the client to reconnect to.¶
session_id: A unique identifier for the TLS session, derived from the session's `resumption_master_secret` using an HKDF-Expand function.¶
expiry_timestamp: A 64-bit unsigned integer representing the Unix timestamp after which this token becomes invalid.¶
nonce: A unique, single-use value generated by the server to prevent replay attacks.¶
signature: An HMAC tag providing integrity and authenticity. The signature is computed over a concatenation of the `target_address`, `session_id`, `expiry_timestamp`, and `nonce` fields. The key for the HMAC MUST be derived from the `resumption_master_secret`.¶
This proposal introduces a new alert type to trigger the migration.¶
enum {
...,
migrate_notify(TBD3),
...
} AlertDescription;
¶
The `migrate_notify` alert is a notification-level alert. Upon receiving this alert, the client SHOULD initiate the migration process as described in Section 3.3. It does not indicate a protocol error.¶
Token Integrity and Authenticity: The `MigrationToken` is protected by an HMAC signature keyed with a secret derived from the session's master secret. This prevents forgery and ensures the token was generated by a server with access to the original session's cryptographic state.¶
Session Binding: The inclusion of the session-derived `session_id` in the signature calculation ensures that a token issued for one session cannot be used to authorize the migration of a different session.¶
Replay Attacks: The `nonce` field in the `MigrationToken` prevents an attacker from capturing and replaying a token. The server infrastructure is responsible for tracking and invalidating used nonces.¶
Operational Inflexibility: Including the `target_address` in the initial token makes the migration path static. The server cannot dynamically choose a new destination at the time of migration, which reduces operational flexibility.¶
This document requires IANA to allocate new codepoints from the following TLS registries, as defined in [RFC8446]:¶
1. From the "TLS ExtensionType Values" registry for `migration_support` and `migration_token`. This document suggests the values TBD1 and TBD2.¶
2. From the "TLS Alert Registry" for the `migrate_notify` alert. This document suggests the value TBD3.¶