AVT A. Begen
Internet-Draft B. VerSteeg
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: November 20, 2010 May 19, 2010
Port Mapping Between Unicast and Multicast RTP Sessions
draft-ietf-avt-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-02
Abstract
This document presents a port mapping solution that allows RTP
receivers to choose their own ports for an auxiliary unicast session
in RTP applications using both unicast and multicast services. The
solution requires multiplexing RTP and RTCP on a single port on both
endpoints in the unicast session.
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, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Port Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Steps for Establishing a Unicast Session . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Implications of NATs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Message Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Keeping the NAT Binding(s) Alive . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. SDP Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. PortMappingRequest (PMReq) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. PortMappingResponse (PMRes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Procedures for Cookie Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. Registration of FMT Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Contributors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
1. Introduction
In (any-source or source-specific) multicast RTP applications,
destination ports, i.e., the ports on which the multicast receivers
receive the RTP and RTCP packets, are defined declaratively. In
other words, the receivers cannot choose their receive ports and the
sender(s) use the pre-defined ports.
In unicast RTP applications, the receiving end needs to choose its
ports for RTP and RTCP since these ports are local resources and only
the receiving end can determine which ports are available to use.
The receiving may convey its request to the sending end through
different ways, one of which is the Offer/Answer Model [RFC3264] for
the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566]. However, the
Offer/Answer Model requires offer/answer exchange(s) between the
endpoints, and the resulting delay may not be desirable in delay-
sensitive real-time applications. Furthermore, the Offer/Answer
Model may be burdensome for the endpoints that are concurrently
running a large number of unicast sessions with other endpoints.
In this specification, we consider an RTP application that uses one
or more unicast and multicast RTP sessions together. While the
declaration and selection of the ports are well defined and work well
for multicast and unicast RTP applications, respectively, the usage
of the ports introduces complications when a receiving end mixes
unicast and multicast RTP sessions within the same RTP application.
An example scenario is where the RTP packets are distributed through
source-specific multicast (SSM) and a receiver sends unicast RTCP
feedback to a local repair server (also functioning as a feedback
target) [RFC5760] asking for a retransmission of the packets it is
missing, and the local repair server sends the retransmission packets
over a unicast RTP session [RFC4588].
Another scenario is where a receiver wants to rapidly acquire a new
primary multicast RTP session and receives one or more RTP burst
packets over a unicast session before joining the SSM session
[I-D.ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp]. Similar scenarios exist in
applications where some part of the content is distributed through
multicast while the receivers get additional and/or auxiliary content
through one or more unicast connections, as sketched in Figure 1.
In this document, we discuss this problem and introduce a solution
that we refer to as Port Mapping. This solution allows receivers to
choose their desired UDP ports for RTP and RTCP in every unicast
session when they are running RTP applications using both unicast and
multicast services, and offer/answer exchange is not available. This
solution is not applicable in cases where TCP is used as the
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
transport protocol in the unicast sessions. For such scenarios,
refer to [RFC4145].
-----------
| Unicast |................
| Source |............. :
| (Server) | : :
----------- : :
v v
----------- ---------- -----------
| Multicast |------->| Router |---------->|Client RTP |
| Source | | |..........>|Application|
----------- ---------- -----------
| :
| : -----------
| :..............>|Client RTP |
+---------------->|Application|
-----------
-------> Multicast RTP Flow
.......> Unicast RTP Flow
Figure 1: RTP applications simultaneously using both unicast and
multicast services
In the remainder of this document, we refer to the RTP endpoints that
serve other RTP endpoints over a unicast session as the Servers. The
receiving RTP endpoints are referred to as Clients.
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
2. Requirements Notation
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].
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
3. Port Mapping
We present the details of the port mapping solution in the context of
an illustrative example.
Consider an SSM distribution network where a distribution source
multicasts RTP packets to a large number of clients, and one or more
retransmission servers function as feedback targets to collect
unicast RTCP feedback from these clients [RFC5760]. The
retransmission servers also join the primary multicast session to
receive the multicast packets and cache them for a certain time
period. When a client detects missing packets in the primary
multicast session, it requests a retransmission from one of the
retransmission servers by using an RTCP NACK message [RFC4585]. The
retransmission server pulls the requested packet(s) out of the cache
and retransmits them to the requesting client.
The pertaining RTP and RTCP flows are sketched in Figure 2. Between
the client and server, there may be one or more NAT devices
[RFC4787].
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
-------------- --- ----------
| |-------------------------------| |-->|P1 |
| |-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-| |.->|P2 |
| | | | | |
| Distribution | ---------------- | | | |
| Source | | | | | | |
| |---->|P1 | | | | |
| |.-.->|P2 | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
-------------- | P3|<.=.=.=.| |=.=|*c1 |
| P3|<~~~~~~~| |~~~|*c1 |
PRIMARY MULTICAST | | | | | |
RTP SESSION with | | | | | |
UNICAST FEEDBACK | | | N | | |
| Retransmission | | A | | Client |
- - - - - - - - - - -| - - - - - - - -| - - - -| - |- -| - - - - -|-
| Server | | T | | |
AUXILIARY UNICAST | | | | | |
RTP SESSION | P4|<~~~~~~~| |~~>|*c2 |
| P4|........| |..>|*c2 |
| P4|<.=.=.=.| |=.>|*c2 |
| | | | | |
---------------- --- ----------
-------> Multicast RTP Flow
.-.-.-.> Multicast RTCP Flow
.=.=.=.> Unicast RTCP Reports
~~~~~~~> Unicast RTCP Feedback Messages (if any)
.......> Unicast RTP Flow
Figure 2: Example scenario showing an SSM distribution with support
for retransmissions from a server
In this figure, we have the following multicast and unicast ports:
o Ports P1 and P2 denote the destination RTP and RTCP ports in the
primary multicast session, respectively. The clients listen to
these ports to receive the multicast RTP and RTCP packets. Ports
P1 and P2 are defined declaratively.
o Port P3 denotes the RTCP port on the feedback target running on
the retransmission server to collect the RTCP feedback messages,
and RTCP receiver and extended reports from the clients in the
primary multicast session. Port P3 is defined declaratively.
o Port P4 denotes the port on the retransmission server used for the
unicast session. The server multiplexes RTP and RTCP traffic on
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
this single port [RFC5761] in the unicast session. Port P4 is
defined declaratively and MUST be different from port P3.
o Ports *c1 and *c2 are chosen by the client. *c1 denotes the port
on the client used to send the unicast RTCP feedback in the
primary multicast session. *c2 denotes the port on the client used
in the unicast session. The client multiplexes RTP and RTCP
traffic on this single port [RFC5761] in the unicast session.
Ports c1 and c2 do not have to be different ports.
Once the unicast session is established, the server needs to remember
the public IP address and public port of the client as part of the
session state information. The public ports of the client are
denoted by c1' and c2'.
In addition to the ports, we use the following notation:
o DS: IP address of the distribution source
o G: Destination multicast address
o S: IP address of the retransmission server
o C: IP address of the client
o C': Public IP address of the client (as seen by the server)
We assume that the information declaratively defined is available as
part of the session description information and is provided to the
clients. The Session Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] and other
session description methods can be used for this purpose.
3.1. Steps for Establishing a Unicast Session
The steps to establish a unicast session are provided below:
1. The client ascertains server address (S) and port numbers (P3 and
P4) from the session description.
2. The client determines its port numbers (*c1 and *c2).
3. The client sends a message to the server via a new RTCP message,
called PortMappingRequest. This message MUST be sent from port
c2 to port P4. The server learns client's public IP address (C')
and its public RTP/RTCP port (c2') from the received message.
4. The server generates an opaque encapsulation (called Cookie) that
conveys client's addressing information using a reversible
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
transform only known to the server.
5. The server sends the Cookie back to the client using a new RTCP
message, called PortMappingResponse. This message MUST be sent
from port P4 to port c2'.
6. The client includes the Cookie when necessary in the subsequent
messages sent to the server. Note that the unicast session is
not established during the steps required to retrieve a Cookie
from the server. The unicast session is only established after
the server has received a feedback message (along with a valid
Cookie) from the client for which it needs to react by sending
unicast data (See Figure 3). Until a unicast session is
established, neither the server nor the client needs to send RTCP
reports for the unicast session.
7. Normal flows ensue, with the server using the addressing
encapsulated in the opaque Cookie. The client is responsible for
keeping the NAT binding alive for the duration of the unicast
session.
3.2. Implications of NATs
There may be one or more NAT devices between the client and server.
Without an external mechanism such as STUN [RFC5389], the client
cannot determine whether there are any NATs between itself and the
server. Such NAT devices would block all incoming traffic unless the
client sent traffic of the same transport protocol to the server
first. Thus, the client has always to assume that there is at least
one NAT device and send periodic packets to keep the NAT binding
alive [I-D.ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive]. Since the client multiplexes
RTP and RTCP on a single port, it has to keep a single NAT binding
alive for each unicast session. See Section 3.4 for further details.
If the NAT device fails for some reason and then restarts, the public
IP address and/or port assigned to a particular client may change.
This will invalidate the previously acquired cookies and may result
in a failure in the unicast session. Upon detecting the failure, the
client must acquire new cookies. Applications using this method must
be aware of the potential temporary interruptions.
The NAT device may have endpoint-independent mappings [RFC4787],
meaning that it assigns the same public IP address and port for the
packets sent from the same internal IP address and port, even when
the client is talking to different destinations. Oppositely, the NAT
device may have endpoint-dependent mappings in which case the public
IP address and port of the outgoing packets may differ when they are
sent to different destinations. In practice, however, it is a
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
difficult task to determine the type of a NAT device
[I-D.ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery].
3.3. Message Flows
Figure 3 shows the message flows, where each message is appended with
the (Source Address, Source Port, Destination Address, Destination
Port) information. The optional messages are indicated in
parentheses and they may or may not be present in certain scenarios.
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
------------ ---------------- ------
|Distribution| | Retransmission | | |
| Source | | Server | |Client|
| (DS) | | (S) | | (C) |
------------ ---------------- ------
| | - |
| | | | |
(DS,*,G,P1)|--->|------- (RTP Multicast) -------->| |-->|
(DS,*,G,P2)|.-.>|.-.-.-. (RTCP Multicast) -.-.-.->| |-->|
| | | |
| | | |
|<=.= (RTCP Receiver Reports) .=.=| |<..|(C,c1,S,P3)
| (for the multicast session) | | |
: | | :
: | | :
: | | :
: | | :
|<~~~~~ PortMappingRequest ~~~~~~~| |<~~|(C,c2,S,P4)
| |N| |
(S,P4,C',c2')|~~~~~~ PortMappingResponse ~~~~~>|A|~~>|
| (Cookie) |T| |
| | | |
|<~~~~ RTCP NACK with Cookie ~~~~~| |<~~|(C,c1,S,P3)
| | | |
|*********************************|*|***|
|* UNICAST SESSION ESTABLISHED | | *|
|*********************************|*|***|
| | | |
(S,P4,C',c2')|...... RTP Retransmissions .....>| |..>|
| | | |
| | | |
|<=.=. RTCP Receiver Reports =.=.=| |<..|(C,c2,S,P4)
| (for the unicast session) | | |
| | | |
(S,P4,C',c2')|=.=.=. RTCP Sender Reports =.=.=>| |..>|
| (for the unicast session) | | |
| | | |
-
-------> Multicast RTP Flow
.-.-.-.> Multicast RTCP Flow
.=.=.=.> Unicast RTCP Reports
~~~~~~~> Unicast RTCP Feedback Messages
.......> Unicast RTP Flow
Figure 3: Message flows for establishing a unicast session
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
In the example above, the compound RTCP packet carrying the NACK
message also carries the Cookie since the server must know which port
the client is expecting to receive the RTP retransmission packet(s)
and RTCP sender reports on. If an RTCP message from the client will
not trigger any transmission from the server (e.g., RTCP receiver and
extended reports), it does not have to include the Cookie.
3.4. Keeping the NAT Binding(s) Alive
Editor's note: We need to determine the best option to keep the NAT
bindings alive [I-D.ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive].
Editor's note: Are RTCP receiver/extended reports enough to keep the
binding alive? No, keep-alive messages need to be sent after the
request is made and until the cookie is no longer needed and the
client does not start sending RTCP reports until the unicast session
is actually established which might happen a long time after the
cookie is requested.
3.5. SDP Description
The SDP describing the scenario given in Figure 2 can be written as:
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
v=0
o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 nack.example.com
s=Local Retransmissions
t=0 0
a=group:FID 1 2
a=rtcp-unicast:rsi
m=video 41000 RTP/AVPF 98
i=Primary Multicast Stream
c=IN IP4 233.252.0.2/255
a=source-filter:incl IN IP4 233.252.0.2 198.51.100.1
a=rtpmap:98 MP2T/90000
a=multicast-rtcp:42000
a=rtcp:43000 IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a=rtcp-fb:98 nack
a=mid:1
m=video 51000 RTP/AVPF 99
i=Unicast Retransmission Stream
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a=sendonly
a=rtpmap:99 rtx/90000
a=rtcp-mux
a=fmtp:99 apt=98; rtx-time=5000
a=mid:2
Figure 4: SDP describing an SSM distribution with support for
retransmissions from a local server
In this SDP, the source stream is multicast from a distribution
source (with a source IP address of 198.51.100.1) to the multicast
destination address of 233.252.0.2 (G) and port 41000 (P1). The
associated RTCP packets are multicast in the same group to port 42000
(P2). A retransmission server including feedback target
functionality with an IP address of 192.0.2.1 (S) and port of 43000
(P3) is specified with the 'rtcp' attribute. The server uses port
51000 (P4) for the unicast sessions.
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
4. Message Formats
Editor's note: Should we stick with 4585 packet format?
Editor's note: Must the client use the same SSRC (and the same but
unique CNAME) both in the multicast and unicast sessions so the
reports received in two sessions can be linked?
The common packet format for the RTCP feedback messages is defined in
Section 6.1 of [RFC4585]. A feedback message has a fixed-length
field for version, padding, feedback message type (FMT), payload type
(PT), length, SSRC of packet sender, SSRC of media sender as well as
a variable-length field for feedback control information (FCI).
In the PortMappingRequest and PortMappingResponse messages, the PT
field is set to RTPFB (205), and the respective FMT fields are set to
PMReq (7) and PMRes (8). Depending on the specific scenario, it may
be desirable to send these messages in a reduced-size RTCP packet
[RFC5506]. However, unless support for [RFC5506] has been signaled,
compound RTCP packets MUST be used by following [RFC3550] rules.
Editor's note: Should the server always respond to the PMReq message
as soon as possible? If the request is rejected, the server could
send a PMRes message with the Cookie field empty.
Following the rules specified in [RFC3550], all integer fields in the
messages defined below are carried in network-byte order, that is,
most significant byte (octet) first, also known as big-endian.
Unless otherwise noted, numeric constants are in decimal (base 10).
Any Reserved field SHALL be set to zero and ignored.
4.1. PortMappingRequest (PMReq)
Editor's note: How do we set the media sender SSRC field in the
following message? The suggested approach is to use client's SSRC in
both packet sender and media sender SSRC fields.
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V=2|P| FMT=7 | PT=205 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of Packet Sender |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of Media Source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 32-bit Random Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Syntax for the PortMappingRequest (PMReq) message
4.2. PortMappingResponse (PMRes)
The PortMappingResponse message is used by the server to send a
Cookie to the client, and by the client to include a Cookie in the
RTCP packets as necessary. We might need to rename this message.
Editor's note: How do we set the packet sender SSRC and media sender
SSRC fields in the following message? Are they application specific
(e.g., retransmissions, RAMS, etc.)? See the earlier editor's note.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|V=2|P| FMT=8 | PT=205 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of Packet Sender |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSRC of Media Source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Cookie :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Syntax for the PortMappingResponse (PMRes) message
Editor's note: What else do we need to transmit in the PMRes
message? In particular, should the server indicate the expiration
date for the Cookie?
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
5. Procedures for Cookie Construction
Editor's notes:
The Cookie may contain
o A 32-bit value randomly generated by the client [RFC4086]
o Client's IP address and port. Note that the PMReq and NACK
messages are sent from different client ports (and maybe from
different public IP addresses as well), thus the server cannot use
this information to check whether a cookie is used by the true
owner of that cookie.
o Client's CNAME
o A timestamp to protect against replay attacks (Should the server
tell the client about the expiration date so that the client may
request a new cookie before the current one expires?)
o HMAC [RFC2104] of the above information (where only the server
knows the HMAC secret)
Details are TBC.
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
6. Security Considerations
Editor's notes:
o Cookie expiration via timestamping. This could be important for
clients behind the same NAT (The clients may still generate the
same random number)
o Stealing cookies. Can CNAME be used to avoid this for the clients
behind the same NAT?
o Modifying cookies. Can somebody manipulate the cookies to
redirect the traffic?
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
7. IANA Considerations
The following contact information shall be used for all registrations
in this document:
Ali Begen
abegen@cisco.com
Note to the RFC Editor: In the following, please replace "XXXX" with
the number of this document prior to publication as an RFC.
7.1. Registration of FMT Values
Within the RTPFB range, the following format (FMT) values are
registered:
Name: PMReq
Long name: Port Mapping Request
Value: 7
Reference: [RFCXXXX]
Name: PMRes
Long name: Port Mapping Response
Value: 8
Reference: [RFCXXXX]
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
8. Contributors and Acknowledgments
Many individuals in the AVT and MMUSIC WGs have contributed to this
work, reviewed earlier versions of this specification and provided
feedback. The authors thank each of them.
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC4585] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", RFC 4585,
July 2006.
[RFC5760] Ott, J., Chesterfield, J., and E. Schooler, "RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) Extensions for Single-Source Multicast
Sessions with Unicast Feedback", RFC 5760, February 2010.
[RFC5761] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761, April 2010.
[I-D.ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive]
Marjou, X. and A. Sollaud, "Application Mechanism for
maintaining alive the Network Address Translator (NAT)
mappings associated to RTP flows.",
draft-ietf-avt-app-rtp-keepalive-07 (work in progress),
December 2009.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
June 2002.
[I-D.ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp]
Steeg, B., Begen, A., Caenegem, T., and Z. Vax, "Unicast-
Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions",
draft-ietf-avt-rapid-acquisition-for-rtp-09 (work in
progress), April 2010.
[I-D.ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery]
MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery
Using STUN", draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery-08
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
(work in progress), September 2009.
[RFC4145] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in
the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145,
September 2005.
[RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
RFC 4787, January 2007.
[RFC4588] Rey, J., Leon, D., Miyazaki, A., Varsa, V., and R.
Hakenberg, "RTP Retransmission Payload Format", RFC 4588,
July 2006.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008.
[RFC5506] Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size
Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities
and Consequences", RFC 5506, April 2009.
[RFC4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997.
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Port Mapping May 2010
Authors' Addresses
Ali Begen
Cisco
181 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5J 2T3
CANADA
Email: abegen@cisco.com
Bill VerSteeg
Cisco
5030 Sugarloaf Parkway
Lawrenceville, GA 30044
USA
Email: billvs@cisco.com
Begen & VerSteeg Expires November 20, 2010 [Page 22]
