The Comparison of Different Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal Techniques for Media Controlled by Real-time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)
draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-evaluation-16

 
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mmusic WG)
Last updated 2015-05-26 (latest revision 2015-05-19)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text xml pdf html
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication Oct 2013
Consensus Yes
Document shepherd Flemming Andreasen
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2014-02-10)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alissa Cooper
Send notices to (None)
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state No IC
RFC Editor RFC Editor state EDIT
Network Working Group                                      M. Westerlund
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Informational                                   T. Zeng
Expires: November 20, 2015                                  May 19, 2015

 The Comparison of Different Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal
 Techniques for Media Controlled by Real-time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)
                draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-evaluation-16

Abstract

   This document describes several Network Address Translator (NAT)
   traversal techniques that were considered to be used for establishing
   the RTP media flows controlled by the Real-time Streaming Protocol
   (RTSP).  Each technique includes a description of how it would be
   used, the security implications of using it and any other deployment
   considerations it has.  There are also discussions on how NAT
   traversal techniques relate to firewalls and how each technique can
   be applied in different use cases.  These findings were used when
   selecting the NAT traversal for RTSP 2.0, which is specified in a
   separate document.

Status of This Memo

   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 http://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 November 20, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Westerlund & Zeng       Expires November 20, 2015               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Evaluation of NAT Traversal for RTSP          May 2015

   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.  Network Address Translators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     1.3.  Glossary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.  Detecting the loss of NAT mappings  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Requirements on Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  NAT Traversal Techniques  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Stand-Alone STUN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.1.1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.1.2.  Using STUN to traverse NAT without server
               modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.1.3.  ALG considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.1.4.  Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.1.5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.2.  Server Embedded STUN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.2.1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.2.2.  Embedding STUN in RTSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.2.3.  Discussion On Co-located STUN Server  . . . . . . . .  17
       4.2.4.  ALG considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.2.5.  Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.2.6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.3.  ICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       4.3.1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       4.3.2.  Using ICE in RTSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       4.3.3.  Implementation burden of ICE  . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       4.3.4.  ALG Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       4.3.5.  Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       4.3.6.  Security Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     4.4.  Latching  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
Show full document text