Firewall Traversal for WebRTC
draft-jennings-behave-rtcweb-firewall-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2015-07-06
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
rtcweb                                                       C. Jennings
Internet-Draft                                             S. Nandakumar
Intended status: Informational                              J. Rosenberg
Expires: January 7, 2016                                           Cisco
                                                           July 06, 2015

                     Firewall Traversal for WebRTC
                draft-jennings-behave-rtcweb-firewall-00

Abstract

   Traversal of RTP through corporate firewalls has traditionally been
   complex, requiring the deployment of Session Border Controllers
   (SBCs) or wide open pinholes.  This draft proposes a simple technique
   that allows WebRTC based RTP traffic to traverse firewalls without
   complex firewall configuration and without deployment of SBCs or
   other middleboxes.

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 January 7, 2016.

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
   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

Jennings, et al.         Expires January 7, 2016                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               WebRTC Firewall                   July 2015

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Solution Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Firewall Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Recognizing STUN packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Policy decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Creating the pinhole rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  Tracking media vs data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  WebRTC Browsers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Blocking Media Hiding in HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Deployment Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  WebRTC Servers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Firewall Admins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Design Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.  Why not just use TCP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Security Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Alternate Approaches  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.1.  Firewall Auth Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.2.  Any Cast Whitelist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Problem Statement

   WebRTC [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview] based voice and video
   communications systems are becoming far more common inside
   enterprises, which often need voice and video media to traverse the
   enterprise firewall.  This can happen when a device inside the
   firewall such as a web browser or phone is exchanging media with a
   conference bridge or gateway outside the firewall, or it can happen
   when a device inside the firewall is talking to a device in another
   enterprise or behind a different firewall.

   This problem is not unique to WebRTC media of course.  It is common
   practice for enterprise administrators to block outbound UDP through
   the corporate firewall.  This is done for several reasons:

   1.  The lack of any kind of return messages means that there is no
Show full document text