NSIS Working Group M. Stiemerling
Internet-Draft NEC
Intended status: Standards Track H. Tschofenig
Expires: May 7, 2009 Nokia Siemens Networks
C. Aoun
E. Davies
Folly Consulting
November 3, 2008
NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP)
draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-20.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2009.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Abstract
This memo defines the NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP) for
Network Address Translators (NATs) and firewalls. This NSLP allows
hosts to signal on the data path for NATs and firewalls to be
configured according to the needs of the application data flows. For
instance, it enables hosts behind NATs to obtain a public reachable
address and hosts behind firewalls to receive data traffic. The
overall architecture is given by the framework and requirements
defined by the Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS) working group. The
network scenarios, the protocol itself, and examples for path-coupled
signaling are given in this memo.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Scope and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3. Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4. General Scenario for NATFW Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. Network Deployment Scenarios using the NATFW NSLP . . . . . . 13
2.1. Firewall Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2. NAT with two Private Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3. NAT with Private Network on Sender Side . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4. NAT with Private Network on Receiver Side Scenario . . . . 15
2.5. Both End Hosts behind twice-NATs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6. Both End Hosts Behind Same NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.7. Multihomed Network with NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.8. Multihomed Network with Firewall . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1. Policy Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2. Basic Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.1. Signaling for Outbound Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.2. Signaling for Inbound Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.3. Signaling for Proxy Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2.4. Blocking Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.5. State and Error Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.6. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.7. Classification of RESPONSE Messages . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.8. NATFW NSLP Signaling Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3. Basic Message Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4. Calculation of Signaling Session Lifetime . . . . . . . . 28
3.5. Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.6. Authentication, Authorization, and Policy Decisions . . . 32
3.7. Protocol Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
3.7.1. Creating Signaling Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.7.2. Reserving External Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.7.3. NATFW NSLP Signaling Session Refresh . . . . . . . . . 43
3.7.4. Deleting Signaling Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.7.5. Reporting Asynchronous Events . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.7.6. Proxy Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.8. De-Multiplexing at NATs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.9. Reacting to Route Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.10. Updating Policy Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4. NATFW NSLP Message Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.1. NSLP Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.2. NSLP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.2.1. Signaling Session Lifetime Object . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2.2. External Address Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2.3. Extended Flow Information Object . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.2.4. Information Code Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.2.5. Nonce Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.2.6. Message Sequence Number Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.2.7. Data Terminal Information Object . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.2.8. ICMP Types Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.3. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.3.1. CREATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.3.2. EXTERNAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.3.3. RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.3.4. NOTIFY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.1. Authorization Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.1.1. Peer-to-Peer Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.1.2. Intra-Domain Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.1.3. End-to-Middle Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.2. Security Framework for the NAT/Firewall NSLP . . . . . . . 72
5.2.1. Security Protection between neighboring NATFW NSLP
Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.2.2. Security Protection between non-neighboring NATFW
NSLP Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6. IAB Considerations on UNSAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Appendix A. Selecting Signaling Destination Addresses for
EXTERNAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Appendix B. Applicability Statement on Data Receivers behind
Firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Appendix C. Firewall and NAT Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
C.1. Wildcarding of Policy Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
C.2. Mapping to Firewall Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
C.3. Mapping to NAT Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
C.4. NSLP Handling of Twice-NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Appendix D. Protocols Numbers for Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 89
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope and Background
Firewalls and Network Address Translators (NAT) have both been used
throughout the Internet for many years, and they will remain present
for the foreseeable future. Firewalls are used to protect networks
against certain types of attacks from internal networks and the
Internet, whereas NATs provide a virtual extension of the IP address
space. Both types of devices may be obstacles to some applications,
since they only allow traffic created by a limited set of
applications to traverse them, typically those that use protocols
with relatively predetermined and static properties (e.g., most HTTP
traffic, and other client/server applications). Other applications,
such as IP telephony and most other peer-to-peer applications, which
have more dynamic properties, create traffic that is unable to
traverse NATs and firewalls unassisted. In practice, the traffic of
many applications cannot traverse autonomous firewalls or NATs, even
when they have additional functionality which attempts to restore the
transparency of the network.
Several solutions to enable applications to traverse such entities
have been proposed and are currently in use. Typically, application
level gateways (ALG) have been integrated with the firewall or NAT to
configure the firewall or NAT dynamically. Another approach is
middlebox communication (MIDCOM). In this approach, ALGs external to
the firewall or NAT configure the corresponding entity via the MIDCOM
protocol [RFC3303]. Several other work-around solutions are
available, such as STUN [RFC5389]. However, all of these approaches
introduce other problems that are generally hard to solve, such as
dependencies on the type of NAT implementation (full-cone, symmetric,
etc), or dependencies on certain network topologies.
NAT and firewall (NATFW) signaling shares a property with Quality of
Service (QoS) signaling. The signaling of both must reach any device
on the data path that is involved in, respectively, NATFW or QoS
treatment of data packets. This means, that for both, NATFW and QoS,
it is convenient if signaling travels path-coupled, meaning that the
signaling messages follow exactly the same path that the data packets
take. RSVP [RFC2205] is an example of a current QoS signaling
protocol that is path-coupled. [rsvp-firewall] proposes the use of
RSVP as firewall signaling protocol but does not include NATs.
This memo defines a path-coupled signaling protocol for NAT and
firewall configuration within the framework of NSIS, called the NATFW
NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP). The general requirements for
NSIS are defined in [RFC3726] and the general framework of NSIS is
outlined in [RFC4080]. It introduces the split between an NSIS
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
transport layer and an NSIS signaling layer. The transport of NSLP
messages is handled by an NSIS Network Transport Layer Protocol
(NTLP, with General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST)
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp] being the implementation of the abstract NTLP).
The signaling logic for QoS and NATFW signaling is implemented in the
different NSLPs. The QoS NSLP is defined in
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp].
The NATFW NSLP is designed to request the dynamic configuration of
NATs and/or firewalls along the data path. Dynamic configuration
includes enabling data flows to traverse these devices without being
obstructed, as well as blocking of particular data flows at inbound
firewalls. Enabling data flows requires the loading of firewall
rules with an action that allows the data flow packets to be
forwarded and creating NAT bindings. Blocking of data flows requires
the loading of firewalls rules with an action that will deny
forwarding of the data flow packets. A simplified example for
enabling data flows: A source host sends a NATFW NSLP signaling
message towards its data destination. This message follows the data
path. Every NATFW NSLP-enabled NAT/firewall along the data path
intercepts this message, processes them, and configures itself
accordingly. Thereafter, the actual data flow can traverse all these
configured firewalls/NATs.
It is necessary to distinguish between two different basic scenarios
when operating the NATFW NSLP, independent of the type of the
middleboxes to be configured.
1. Both, data sender and data receiver, are NSIS NATFW NSLP aware.
This includes the cases where the data sender is logically
decomposed from the initiator of the NSIS signaling (the so-
called NSIS initiator) or the data receiver logically decomposed
from the receiver of the NSIS signaling (the so-called NSIS
receiver), but both sides support NSIS. This scenario assumes
deployment of NSIS all over the Internet, or at least at all NATs
and firewalls. This scenario is used as base assumption, if not
otherwise noted.
2. Only one end host or region of the network is NSIS NATFW NSLP
aware, either data receiver or data sender. This scenario is
referred to as proxy mode.
The NATFW NSLP has two basic signaling messages which are sufficient
to cope with the various possible scenarios likely to be encountered
before and after widespread deployment of NSIS:
CREATE message: Sent by the data sender for configuring a path
outbound from a data sender to a data receiver.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
EXTERNAL message: Used by data receiver to locate inbound NATs/
firewalls and prime them to expect inbound signaling and at NATs
to pre-allocate a public address. This is used for data receivers
behind these devices to enable their reachability.
CREATE and EXTERNAL messages are sent by the NSIS initiator (NI)
towards the NSIS responder (NR). Both type of messages are
acknowledged by a subsequent RESPONSE message. This RESPONSE message
is generated by the NR if the requested configuration can be
established, otherwise the NR or any of the NSIS forwarders (NFs) can
also generate such a message if an error occurs. NFs and the NR can
also generate asynchronous messages to notify the NI, the so called
NOTIFY messages.
If the data receiver resides in a private addressing realm or behind
a firewall, and needs to preconfigure the edge-NAT/edge-firewall to
provide a (publicly) reachable address for use by the data sender, a
combination of EXTERNAL and CREATE messages is used.
During the introduction of NSIS, it is likely that one or the other
of the data sender and receiver will not be NSIS aware. In these
cases, the NATFW NSLP can utilize NSIS aware middleboxes on the path
between the data sender and data receiver to provide proxy NATFW NSLP
services (i.e., the proxy mode). Typically, these boxes will be at
the boundaries of the realms in which the end hosts are located.
The CREATE and EXTERNAL messages create NATFW NSLP and NTLP state in
NSIS entities. NTLP state allows signaling messages to travel in the
forward (outbound) and the reverse (inbound) direction along the path
between a NAT/firewall NSLP sender and a corresponding receiver.
This state is managed using a soft-state mechanism, i.e., it expires
unless it is refreshed from time to time. The NAT bindings and
firewall rules being installed during the state setup are bound to
the particular signaling session. However, the exact local
implementation of the NAT bindings and firewall rules are NAT/
firewall specific and it is out of scope of this memo.
This memo is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the network
environment for NATFW NSLP signaling. Section 3 defines the NATFW
signaling protocol and Section 4 defines the message components and
the overall messages used in the protocol. The remaining parts of
the main body of the document cover security considerations
Section 5, IAB considerations on UNilateral Self-Address Fixing
(UNSAF) [RFC3424] in Section 6 and IANA considerations in Section 7.
Please note that readers familiar with firewalls and NATs and their
possible location within networks can safely skip Section 2.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
1.2. Terminology and Abbreviations
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].
This document uses a number of terms defined in [RFC3726] and
[RFC4080]. The following additional terms are used:
o Policy rule: A policy rule is "a basic building block of a policy-
based system. It is the binding of a set of actions to a set of
conditions - where the conditions are evaluated to determine
whether the actions are performed" [RFC3198]. In the context of
NSIS NATFW NSLP, the conditions are the specification of a set of
packets to which the rule is applied. The set of actions always
contains just a single element per rule, and is limited to either
action "deny" or action "allow".
o Reserved policy rule: A policy rule stored at NATs or firewalls
for activation by a later, different signaling exchange. This
type of policy rule is kept in the NATFW NSLP and is not loaded
into the firewall or NAT engine, i.e., it does not affect the data
flow handling.
o Installed policy rule: A policy rule in operation at NATs or
firewalls. This type of rule is kept in the NATFW NSLP and is
loaded into the firewall or NAT engine, i.e., it is affecting the
data flow.
o Remembered policy rule: A policy rule stored at NATs and firewalls
for immediate use, as soon as the signaling exchange is
successfully completed.
o Firewall: A packet filtering device that matches packets against a
set of policy rules and applies the actions.
o Network Address Translator: Network Address Translation is a
method by which IP addresses are mapped from one IP address realm
to another, in an attempt to provide transparent routing between
hosts (see [RFC2663]). Network Address Translators are devices
that perform this work by modifying packets passing through them.
o Data Receiver (DR): The node in the network that is receiving the
data packets of a flow.
o Data Sender (DS): The node in the network that is sending the data
packets of a flow.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
o NATFW NSLP peer or peer: An NSIS NATFW NSLP node with which an
NTLP adjacency has been created as defined in
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp].
o NATFW NSLP signaling session or signaling session: A signaling
session defines an association between the NI, NFs, and the NR
related to a data flow. All the NATFW NSLP peers on the path,
including the NI and the NR, use the same identifier to refer to
the state stored for the association. The same NI and NR may have
more than one signaling session active at any time. The state for
NATFW NSLP consists of NSLP state and associated policy rules at a
middlebox.
o Edge-NAT: An edge-NAT is a NAT device with a globally routable IP
address which is reachable from the public Internet.
o Edge-firewall: An edge-firewall is a firewall device that is
located on the border line of an administrative domain.
o Public Network: "A Global or Public Network is an address realm
with unique network addresses assigned by Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) or an equivalent address registry. This
network is also referred as external network during NAT
discussions" [RFC2663].
o Private/Local Network: "A private network is an address realm
independent of external network addresses. Private network may
also be referred alternately as Local Network. Transparent
routing between hosts in private realm and external realm is
facilitated by a NAT router" [RFC2663].
o Public/Global IP address: An IP address located in the public
network according to Section 2.7 of [RFC2663].
o Private/Local IP address: An IP address located in the private
network according to Section 2.8 of [RFC2663].
o Signaling Destination Address (SDA): An IP address generally taken
from the public/global IP address range, although, the SDA may in
certain circumstances be part of the private/local IP address
range. This address is used in EXTERNAL signaling message
exchanges, if the data receiver's IP address is unknown.
1.3. Middleboxes
The term middlebox covers a range of devices and is well-defined in
[RFC3234]: "A middlebox is defined as any intermediate device
performing functions other than the normal, standard functions of an
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
IP router on the datagram path between source host and a destination
host". As such, middleboxes fall into a number of categories with a
wide range of functionality, not all of which is pertinent to the
NATFW NSLP. Middlebox categories in the scope of this memo are
firewalls that filter data packets against a set of filter rules, and
NATs that translate packet addresses from one address realm to
another address realm. Other categories of middleboxes, such as QoS
traffic shapers, are out of scope of this memo.
The term NAT used in this document is a placeholder for a range of
different NAT flavors. We consider the following types of NATs:
o Traditional NAT (basic NAT and NAPT)
o Bi-directional NAT
o Twice-NAT
o Multihomed NAT
For definitions and a detailed discussion about the characteristics
of each NAT type please see [RFC2663].
All types of middleboxes under consideration here, use policy rules
to make a decision on data packet treatment. Policy rules consist of
a flow identifier which selects the packets to which the policy
applies and an associated action; data packets matching the flow
identifier are subjected to the policy rule action. A typical flow
identifier is the 5-tuple selector which matches the following fields
of a packet to configured values:
o Source and destination IP addresses
o Transport protocol number
o Transport source and destination port numbers
Actions for firewalls are usually one or more of:
o Allow: forward data packet
o Deny: block data packet and discard it
o Other actions such as logging, diverting, duplicating, etc
Actions for NATs include (amongst many others):
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
o Change source IP address and transport port number to a globally
routable IP address and associated port number.
o Change destination IP address and transport port number to a
private IP address and associated port number.
It should be noted that a middlebox may contain two logical
representations of the policy rule. The policy rule has a
representation within the NATFW NSLP, comprising the message routing
information (MRI) of the NTLP and NSLP information (such as the rule
action). The other representation is the implementation of the NATFW
NSLP policy rule within the NAT and firewall engine of the particular
device. Refer to Appendix C for further details.
1.4. General Scenario for NATFW Traversal
The purpose of NSIS NATFW signaling is to enable communication
between endpoints across networks, even in the presence of NAT and
firewall middleboxes that have not been specially engineered to
facilitate communication with the application protocols used. This
removes the need to create and maintain application layer gateways
for specific protocols that have been commonly used to provide
transparency in previous generations of NAT and firewall middleboxes.
It is assumed that these middleboxes will be statically configured in
such a way that NSIS NATFW signaling messages themselves are allowed
to reach the locally installed NATFW NSLP daemon. NSIS NATFW NSLP
signaling is used to dynamically install additional policy rules in
all NATFW middleboxes along the data path that will allow
transmission of the application data flow(s). Firewalls are
configured to forward data packets matching the policy rule provided
by the NSLP signaling. NATs are configured to translate data packets
matching the policy rule provided by the NSLP signaling. An
additional capability, that is an exception to the primary goal of
NSIS NATFW signaling, is that the NATFW nodes can request blocking of
particular data flows instead of enabling these flows at inbound
firewalls.
The basic high-level picture of NSIS usage is that end hosts are
located behind middleboxes, meaning that there is at least one
middlebox on the data path from the end host in a private network to
the external network (NATFW in Figure 1). Applications located at
these end hosts try to establish communication with corresponding
applications on other such end hosts. They trigger the NSIS entity
at the local host to control provisioning for middlebox traversal
along the prospective data path (e.g., via an API call). The NSIS
entity in turn uses NSIS NATFW NSLP signaling to establish policy
rules along the data path, allowing the data to travel from the
sender to the receiver unobstructed.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Application Application Server (0, 1, or more) Application
+----+ +----+ +----+
| +------------------------+ +------------------------+ |
+-+--+ +----+ +-+--+
| |
| NSIS Entities NSIS Entities |
+-+--+ +----+ +-----+ +-+--+
| +--------+ +----------------------------+ +-----+ |
+-+--+ +-+--+ +--+--+ +-+--+
| | ------ | |
| | //// \\\\\ | |
+-+--+ +-+--+ |/ | +-+--+ +-+--+
| | | | | Internet | | | | |
| +--------+ +-----+ +----+ +-----+ |
+----+ +----+ |\ | +----+ +----+
\\\\ /////
sender NATFW (1+) ------ NATFW (1+) receiver
Note that 1+ refers to one or more NATFW nodes.
Figure 1: Generic View of NSIS with NATs and/or firewalls
For end-to-end NATFW signaling, it is necessary that each firewall
and each NAT along the path between the data sender and the data
receiver implements the NSIS NATFW NSLP. There might be several NATs
and FWs in various possible combinations on a path between two hosts.
Section 2 presents a number of likely scenarios with different
combinations of NATs and firewalls. However, the scenarios given in
the following sections are not limiting the scope of the NATFW NSLP
to them only, but they are examples only.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
2. Network Deployment Scenarios using the NATFW NSLP
This section introduces several scenarios for middlebox placement
within IP networks. Middleboxes are typically found at various
different locations, including at enterprise network borders, within
enterprise networks, as mobile phone network gateways, etc. Usually,
middleboxes are placed more towards the edge of networks than in
network cores. Firewalls and NATs may be found at these locations
either alone, or they may be combined; other categories of
middleboxes may also be found at such locations, possibly combined
with the NATs and/or firewalls.
NSIS initiators (NI) send NSIS NATFW NSLP signaling messages via the
regular data path to the NSIS responder (NR). On the data path,
NATFW NSLP signaling messages reach different NSIS nodes that
implement the NATFW NSLP. Each NATFW NSLP node processes the
signaling messages according to Section 3 and, if necessary, installs
policy rules for subsequent data packets.
Each of the following sub-sections introduces a different scenario
for a different set of middleboxes and their ordering within the
topology. It is assumed that each middlebox implements the NSIS
NATFW NSLP signaling protocol.
2.1. Firewall Traversal
This section describes a scenario with firewalls only; NATs are not
involved. Each end host is behind a firewall. The firewalls are
connected via the public Internet. Figure 2 shows the topology. The
part labeled "public" is the Internet connecting both firewalls.
+----+ //----\\ +----+
NI -----| FW |---| |------| FW |--- NR
+----+ \\----// +----+
private public private
FW: Firewall
NI: NSIS Initiator
NR: NSIS Responder
Figure 2: Firewall Traversal Scenario
Each firewall on the data path must provide traversal service for
NATFW NSLP in order to permit the NSIS message to reach the other end
host. All firewalls process NSIS signaling and establish appropriate
policy rules, so that the required data packet flow can traverse
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
them.
There are several very different ways to place firewalls in a network
topology. To distinguish firewalls located at network borders, such
as administrative domains, from others located internally, the term
edge-firewall is used. A similar distinction can be made for NATs,
with an edge-NAT fulfilling the equivalent role.
2.2. NAT with two Private Networks
Figure 3 shows a scenario with NATs at both ends of the network.
Therefore, each application instance, the NSIS initiator and the NSIS
responder, are behind NATs. The outermost NAT, known as the edge-NAT
(MB2 and MB3), at each side is connected to the public Internet. The
NATs are generically labeled as MBX (for middlebox No. X), since
those devices certainly implement NAT functionality, but can
implement firewall functionality as well.
Only two middleboxes MB are shown in Figure 3 at each side, but in
general, any number of MBs on each side must be considered.
+----+ +----+ //----\\ +----+ +----+
NI --| MB1|-----| MB2|---| |---| MB3|-----| MB4|--- NR
+----+ +----+ \\----// +----+ +----+
private public private
MB: Middlebox
NI: NSIS Initiator
NR: NSIS Responder
Figure 3: NAT with two Private Networks Scenario
Signaling traffic from NI to NR has to traverse all the middleboxes
on the path (MB1 to MB4, in this order), and all the middleboxes must
be configured properly to allow NSIS signaling to traverse them. The
NATFW signaling must configure all middleboxes and consider any
address translation that will result from this configuration in
further signaling. The sender (NI) has to know the IP address of the
receiver (NR) in advance, otherwise it will not be possible to send
any NSIS signaling messages towards the responder. Note that this IP
address is not the private IP address of the responder but the NAT's
public IP address (here MB3's IP address). Instead a NAT binding
(including a public IP address) has to be previously installed on the
NAT MB3. This NAT binding subsequently allows packets reaching the
NAT to be forwarded to the receiver within the private address realm.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
The receiver might have a number of ways to learn its public IP
address and port number (including the NATFW NSLP) and might need to
signal this information to the sender using an application level
signaling protocol.
2.3. NAT with Private Network on Sender Side
This scenario shows an application instance at the sending node that
is behind one or more NATs (shown as generic MB, see discussion in
Section 2.2). The receiver is located in the public Internet.
+----+ +----+ //----\\
NI --| MB |-----| MB |---| |--- NR
+----+ +----+ \\----//
private public
MB: Middlebox
NI: NSIS Initiator
NR: NSIS Responder
Figure 4: NAT with Private Network on Sender Side
The traffic from NI to NR has to traverse middleboxes only on the
sender's side. The receiver has a public IP address. The NI sends
its signaling message directly to the address of the NSIS responder.
Middleboxes along the path intercept the signaling messages and
configure accordingly.
The data sender does not necessarily know whether the receiver is
behind a NAT or not, hence, it is the receiving side that has to
detect whether itself is behind a NAT or not.
2.4. NAT with Private Network on Receiver Side Scenario
The application instance receiving data is behind one or more NATs
shown as MB (see discussion in Section 2.2).
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
//----\\ +----+ +----+
NI ---| |---| MB |-----| MB |--- NR
\\----// +----+ +----+
public private
MB: Middlebox
NI: NSIS Initiator
NR: NSIS Responder
Figure 5: NAT with Private Network on Receiver Scenario
Initially, the NSIS responder must determine its publicly reachable
IP address at the external middlebox and notify the NSIS initiator
about this address. One possibility is that an application level
protocol is used, meaning that the public IP address is signaled via
this protocol to the NI. Afterwards the NI can start its signaling
towards the NR and therefore establish the path via the middleboxes
in the receiver side private network.
This scenario describes the use case for the EXTERNAL message of the
NATFW NSLP.
2.5. Both End Hosts behind twice-NATs
This is a special case, where the main problem arises from the need
to detect that both end hosts are logically within the same address
space, but are also in two partitions of the address realm on either
side of a twice-NAT (see [RFC2663] for a discussion of twice-NAT
functionality).
Sender and receiver are both within a single private address realm
but the two partitions potentially have overlapping IP address
ranges. Figure 6 shows the arrangement of NATs.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
public
+----+ +----+ //----\\
NI --| MB |--+--| MB |---| |
+----+ | +----+ \\----//
|
| +----+
+--| MB |------------ NR
+----+
private
MB: Middlebox
NI: NSIS Initiator
NR: NSIS Responder
Figure 6: NAT to Public, Sender and Receiver on either side of a
twice-NAT Scenario
The middleboxes shown in Figure 6 are twice-NATs, i.e., they map IP
addresses and port numbers on both sides, meaning the mapping of
source and destination address at the private and public interfaces.
This scenario requires the assistance of application level entities,
such as a DNS server. The application level entities must handle
requests that are based on symbolic names, and configure the
middleboxes so that data packets are correctly forwarded from NI to
NR. The configuration of those middleboxes may require other
middlebox communication protocols, such as MIDCOM [RFC3303]. NSIS
signaling is not required in the twice-NAT only case, since
middleboxes of the twice-NAT type are normally configured by other
means. Nevertheless, NSIS signaling might be useful when there are
also firewalls on the path. In this case NSIS will not configure any
policy rule at twice-NATs, but will configure policy rules at the
firewalls on the path. The NSIS signaling protocol must be at least
robust enough to survive this scenario. This requires that twice-
NATs must implement the NATFW NSLP also and participate in NATFW
signaling sessions but they do not change the configuration of the
NAT, i.e., they only read the address mapping information out of the
NAT and translate the Message Routing Information (MRI,
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]) within the NSLP and NTLP accordingly. For more
information see Appendix C.4
2.6. Both End Hosts Behind Same NAT
When NSIS initiator and NSIS responder are behind the same NAT (thus
being in the same address realm, see Figure 7), they are most likely
not aware of this fact. As in Section 2.4 the NSIS responder must
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
determine its public IP address in advance and transfer it to the
NSIS initiator. Afterwards, the NSIS initiator can start sending the
signaling messages to the responder's public IP address. During this
process, a public IP address will be allocated for the NSIS initiator
at the same middlebox as for the responder. Now, the NSIS signaling
and the subsequent data packets will traverse the NAT twice: from
initiator to public IP address of responder (first time) and from
public IP address of responder to responder (second time).
NI public
\ +----+ //----\\
+-| MB |----| |
/ +----+ \\----//
NR
private
MB: Middlebox
NI: NSIS Initiator
NR: NSIS Responder
Figure 7: NAT to Public, Both Hosts Behind Same NAT
2.7. Multihomed Network with NAT
The previous sub-sections sketched network topologies where several
NATs and/or firewalls are ordered sequentially on the path. This
section describes a multihomed scenario with two NATs placed on
alternative paths to the public network.
+----+ //---\\
NI -------| MB |---| |
\ +----+ \\-+-//
\ |
\ +----- NR
\ |
\ +----+ //-+-\\
--| MB |---| |
+----+ \\---//
private public
MB: Middlebox
NI: NSIS Initiator
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
NR: NSIS Responder
Figure 8: Multihomed Network with Two NATs
Depending on the destination, either one or the other middlebox is
used for the data flow. Which middlebox is used, depends on local
policy or routing decisions. NATFW NSLP must be able to handle this
situation properly, see Section 3.7.2 for an extended discussion of
this topic with respect to NATs.
2.8. Multihomed Network with Firewall
This section describes a multihomed scenario with two firewalls
placed on alternative paths to the public network (Figure 9). The
routing in the private and public network decides which firewall is
being taken for data flows. Depending on the data flow's direction,
either outbound or inbound, a different firewall could be traversed.
This is a challenge for the EXTERNAL message of the NATFW NSLP where
the NSIS responder is located behind these firewalls within the
private network. The EXTERNAL message is used to block a particular
data flow on an inbound firewall. NSIS must route the EXTERNAL
message inbound from NR to NI probably without knowing which path the
data traffic will take from NI to NR (see also Appendix B).
+----+
NR -------| FW |\
\ +----+ \ //---\\
\ -| |-- NI
\ \\---//
\ +----+ |
--| FW |-------+
+----+
private
private public
FW: Firewall
NI: NSIS Initiator
NR: NSIS Responder
Figure 9: Multihomed Network with two firewalls
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
3. Protocol Description
This section defines messages, objects, and protocol semantics for
the NATFW NSLP.
3.1. Policy Rules
Policy rules, bound to a NATFW NSLP signaling session, are the
building blocks of middlebox devices considered in the NATFW NSLP.
For firewalls the policy rule usually consists of a 5-tuple and an
action such as allow or deny. The information contained in the tuple
includes source/destination addresses, transport protocol and source/
destination port numbers. For NATs the policy rule consists of the
action 'translate this address' and further mapping information, that
might be, in the simplest case, internal IP address and external IP
address.
The NATFW NSLP carries, in conjunction with the NTLP's Message
Routing Information (MRI), the policy rules to be installed at NATFW
peers. This policy rule is an abstraction with respect to the real
policy rule to be installed at the respective firewall or NAT. It
conveys the initiator's request and must be mapped to the possible
configuration on the particular used NAT and/or firewall in use. For
pure firewalls one or more filter rules must be created and for pure
NATs one or more NAT bindings must be created. In mixed firewall and
NAT boxes, the policy rule must be mapped to filter rules and
bindings observing the ordering of the firewall and NAT engine.
Depending on the ordering, NAT before firewall or vice versa, the
firewall rules must carry public or private IP addresses. However,
the exact mapping depends on the implementation of the firewall or
NAT which is possibly different for each implementation.
The policy rule at the NATFW NSLP level comprises the message routing
information (MRI) part, carried in the NTLP, and the information
available in the NATFW NSLP. The information provided by the NSLP is
stored in the 'extend flow information' (NATFW_EFI) and 'data
terminal information' (NATFW_DTINFO) objects, and the message type.
Additional information, such as the external IP address and port
number, stored in the NAT or firewall, will be used as well. The MRI
carries the filter part of the NAT/firewall-level policy rule that is
to be installed.
The NATFW NSLP specifies two actions for the policy rules: deny and
allow. A policy rule with action set to deny will result in all
packets matching this rule to be dropped. A policy rule with action
set to allow will result in all packets matching this rule to be
forwarded.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
3.2. Basic Protocol Overview
The NSIS NATFW NSLP is carried over the General Internet Signaling
Transport (GIST, the implementation of the NTLP) defined in
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]. NATFW NSLP messages are initiated by the NSIS
initiator (NI), handled by NSIS forwarders (NF) and received by the
NSIS responder (NR). It is required that at least NI and NR
implement this NSLP, intermediate NFs only implement this NSLP when
they provide relevant middlebox functions. NSIS forwarders that do
not have any NATFW NSLP functions just forward these packets as they
have no interest in them.
3.2.1. Signaling for Outbound Traffic
A Data Sender (DS), intending to send data to a Data Receiver (DR)
has to start NATFW NSLP signaling. This causes the NI associated
with the data sender (DS) to launch NSLP signaling towards the
address of data receiver (DR) (see Figure 10). Although it is
expected that the DS and the NATFW NSLP NI will usually reside on the
same host, this specification does not rule out scenarios where the
DS and NI reside on different hosts, the so-called proxy mode (see
Section 3.7.6.)
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| DS/NI |<~~~| MB1/ |<~~~| MB2/ |<~~~| DR/NR |
| |--->| NF1 |--->| NF2 |--->| |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
========================================>
Data Traffic Direction (outbound)
---> : NATFW NSLP request signaling
~~~> : NATFW NSLP response signaling
DS/NI : Data sender and NSIS initiator
DR/NR : Data receiver and NSIS responder
MB1 : Middlebox 1 and NSIS forwarder 1
MB2 : Middlebox 2 and NSIS forwarder 2
Figure 10: General NSIS signaling
The following list shows the normal sequence of NSLP events without
detailing the interaction with the NTLP and the interactions on the
the NTLP level.
o NSIS initiators generate request messages (which are either CREATE
or EXTERNAL messages) and send these towards the NSIS responder.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
This request message is the initial message which creates a new
NATFW NSLP signaling session. The NI and the NR will most likely
already share an application session before they start the NATFW
NSLP signaling session. Note well the difference between both
sessions.
o NSLP request messages are processed each time a NF with NATFW NSLP
support is traversed. Each NF that is intercepting a request
message and is accepting it for further treatment is joining the
particular NATFW NSLP signaling session. These nodes process the
message, check local policies for authorization and
authentication, possibly create policy rules, and forward the
signaling message to the next NSIS node. The request message is
forwarded until it reaches the NSIS responder.
o NSIS responders will check received messages and process them if
applicable. NSIS responders generate RESPONSE messages and send
them hop-by-hop back to the NI via the same chain of NFs
(traversal of the same NF chain is guaranteed through the
established reverse message routing state in the NTLP). The NR is
also joining the NATFW NSLP signaling session if the request
message is accepted.
o The RESPONSE message is processed at each NF that has been
included in the prior NATFW NSLP signaling session setup.
o If the NI has received a successful RESPONSE message and if the
signaling NATFW NSLP session started with a CREATE message, the
data sender can start sending its data flow to the data receiver.
If the NI has received a successful RESPONSE message and if the
signaling NATFW NSLP session started with a EXTERNAL message, the
data receiver is ready to receive further CREATE messages.
Because NATFW NSLP signaling follows the data path from DS to DR,
this immediately enables communication between both hosts for
scenarios with only firewalls on the data path or NATs on the sender
side. For scenarios with NATs on the receiver side certain problems
arise, as described in Section 2.4.
3.2.2. Signaling for Inbound Traffic
When the NR and the NI are located in different address realms and
the NR is located behind a NAT, the NI cannot signal to the NR
address directly. The DR/NR is not reachable from other NIs using
the private address of the NR and thus NATFW signaling messages
cannot be sent to the NR/DR's address. Therefore, the NR must first
obtain a NAT binding that provides an address that is reachable for
the NI. Once the NR has acquired a public IP address, it forwards
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
this information to the DS via a separate protocol. This application
layer signaling, which is out of scope of the NATFW NSLP, may involve
third parties that assist in exchanging these messages.
The same holds partially true for NRs located behind firewalls that
block all traffic by default. In this case, NR must tell its inbound
firewalls of inbound NATFW NSLP signaling and corresponding data
traffic. Once the NR has informed the inbound firewalls, it can
start its application level signaling to initiate communication with
the NI. This mechanism can be used by machines hosting services
behind firewalls as well. In this case, the NR informs the inbound
firewalls as described, but does not need to communicate this to the
NIs.
NATFW NSLP signaling supports this scenario by using the EXTERNAL
message
1. The DR acquires a public address by signaling on the reverse path
(DR towards DS) and thus making itself available to other hosts.
This process of acquiring public addresses is called reservation.
During this process the DR reserves publicly reachable addresses
and ports suitable for further usage in application level
signaling and the publicly reachable address for further NATFW
NSLP signaling. However, the data traffic will not be allowed to
use this address/port initially (see next point). In the process
of reservation the DR becomes the NI for the messages necessary
to obtain the publicly reachable IP address, i.e., the NI for
this specific NATFW NSLP signaling session.
2. Now on the side of DS, the NI creates a new NATFW NSLP signaling
session and signals directly to the public IP address of DR.
This public IP address is used as NR's address, as the NI would
do if there is no NAT in between, and creates policy rules at
middleboxes. Note, that the reservation will only allow
forwarding of signaling messages, but not data flow packets.
Policy rules allowing forwarding of data flow packets set up by
the prior EXTERNAL message signaling will be activated when the
signaling from NI towards NR is confirmed with a positive
RESPONSE message. The EXTERNAL message is described in
Section 3.7.2.
3.2.3. Signaling for Proxy Mode
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
administrative domain
----------------------------------\
|
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | +-------+
| DS/NI |<~~~| MB1/ |<~~~| MB2/ | | | DR |
| |--->| NF1 |--->| NR | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | +-------+
|
----------------------------------/
========================================>
Data Traffic Direction (outbound)
---> : NATFW NSLP request signaling
~~~> : NATFW NSLP response signaling
DS/NI : Data sender and NSIS initiator
DR/NR : Data receiver and NSIS responder
MB1 : Middlebox 1 and NSIS forwarder 1
MB2 : Middlebox 2 and NSIS responder
Figure 11: proxy mode signaling for data sender
The above usage assumes that both ends of a communication support
NSIS, but fails when NSIS is only deployed at one end of the path.
In this case only one of the sending Figure 11 or receiving Figure 12
side is NSIS aware and not both at the same time. NATFW NSLP
supports both scenarios (i.e., either the DS or DR do not support
NSIS) by using a proxy mode, as described in Section 3.7.6
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
administrative domain
/ ----------------------------------
|
+-------+ | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| DS | | | MB2/ |~~~>| MB1/ |~~~>| DR |
| | | | NR |<---| NF1 |<---| |
+-------+ | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|
\----------------------------------
========================================>
Data Traffic Direction (inbound)
---> : NATFW NSLP request signaling
~~~> : NATFW NSLP response signaling
DS/NI : Data sender and NSIS initiator
DR/NR : Data receiver and NSIS responder
MB1 : Middlebox 1 and NSIS forwarder 1
MB2 : Middlebox 2 and NSIS responder
Figure 12: proxy mode signaling for data receiver
3.2.4. Blocking Traffic
The basic functionality of the NATFW NSLP provides for opening
firewall pin holes and creating NAT bindings to enable data flows to
traverse these devices. Firewalls are normally expected to work on a
'deny-all' policy, meaning that traffic not explicitly matching any
firewall filter rule will be blocked. Similarly, the normal behavior
of NATs is to block all traffic that does not match any already
configured/installed binding or NATFW NSLP session. However, some
scenarios require support of firewalls having 'allow-all' policies,
allowing data traffic to traverse the firewall unless it is blocked
explicitly. Data receivers can utilize NATFW NSLP's EXTERNAL message
with action set to 'deny' to install policy rules at inbound
firewalls to block unwanted traffic.
3.2.5. State and Error Maintenance
The protocol works on a soft-state basis, meaning that whatever state
is installed or reserved on a middlebox will expire, and thus be de-
installed or forgotten after a certain period of time. To prevent
premature removal of state that is needed for ongoing communication,
the NATFW NI involved will have to specifically request a NATFW NSLP
signaling session extension. An explicit NATFW NSLP state deletion
capability is also provided by the protocol.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
If the actions requested by a NATFW NSLP message cannot be carried
out, NFs and the NR must return a failure, such that appropriate
actions can be taken. They can do this either during the request
message handling (synchronously) by sending an error RESPONSE
message, or at any time (asynchronously) by sending a NOTIFY
notification message.
The next sections define the NATFW NSLP message types and formats,
protocol operations, and policy rule operations.
3.2.6. Message Types
The protocol uses four messages types:
o CREATE: a request message used for creating, changing, refreshing,
and deleting NATFW NSLP signaling sessions, i.e., open the data
path from DS to DR.
o EXTERNAL: a request message used for reserving, changing,
refreshing, and deleting EXTERNAL NATFW NSLP signaling sessions.
EXTERNAL messages are forwarded to the edge-NAT or edge-firewall
and allow inbound CREATE messages to be forwarded to the NR.
Additionally, EXTERNAL messages reserve an external address and,
if applicable, port number at an edge-NAT.
o NOTIFY: an asynchronous message used by NATFW peers to alert other
NATFW peers about specific events (especially failures).
o RESPONSE: used as a response to CREATE and EXTERNAL request
messages.
3.2.7. Classification of RESPONSE Messages
RESPONSE messages will be generated synchronously to CREATE and
EXTERNAL messages by NSIS Forwarders and Responders to report success
or failure of operations or some information relating to the NATFW
NSLP signaling session or a node. RESPONSE messages MUST NOT be
generated for any other message, such as NOTIFY and RESPONSE.
All RESPONSE messages MUST carry a NATFW_INFO object which contains a
severity class code and a response code (see Section 4.2.4). This
section defines terms for groups of RESPONSE messages depending on
the severity class.
o Successful RESPONSE: Messages carrying NATFW_INFO with severity
class 'Success' (0x2).
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
o Informational RESPONSE: Messages carrying NATFW_INFO with severity
class 'Informational' (0x1) (only used with NOTIFY messages).
o Error RESPONSE: Messages carrying NATFW_INFO with severity class
other than 'Success' or 'Informational'.
3.2.8. NATFW NSLP Signaling Sessions
A NATFW NSLP signaling session defines an association between the NI,
NFs, and the NR related to a data flow. This association is created
when the initial CREATE or EXTERNAL message is successfully received
at the NFs or the NR. There is signaling NATFW NSLP session state
stored at the NTLP layer and at the NATFW NSLP level. The NATFW NSLP
signaling session state for the NATFW NSLP comprises NSLP state and
the associated policy rules at a middlebox.
The NATFW NSLP signaling session is identified by the session ID
(plus other information at the NTLP level). The session ID is
generated by the NI before the initial CREATE or EXTERNAL message is
sent. The value of the session ID MUST be generated in a random way
by the NI, i.e., the output MUST NOT be easily guessable by third
parties. The session ID is not stored in any NATFW NSLP message but
passed on to the NTLP.
A NATFW NSLP signaling session has several conceptional states that
describes in what state a signaling session is at a given time. The
signaling session can have these states at a node:
o Pending: The NATFW NSLP signaling session has been created and the
node is waiting for a RESPONSE message to the CREATE or EXTERNAL
message. A NATFW NSLP signaling session in state 'Pending' MUST
be marked as 'Dead' if no corresponding RESPONSE message has been
received within the time of the locally granted NATFW NSLP
signaling session lifetime of the forwarded CREATE or EXTERNAL
message (as described in Section 3.4).
o Established: The NATFW NSLP signaling session is established, i.e,
the signaling has been successfully performed and the lifetime of
NATFW NSLP signaling session is counted from now on. A NATFW NSLP
signaling session in state 'Established' MUST be marked as 'Dead'
if no refresh message has been received within the time of the
locally granted NATFW NSLP signaling session lifetime of the
RESPONSE message (as described in Section 3.4).
o Dead: Either the NATFW NSLP signaling session is timed out or the
node has received an error RESPONSE message for the NATFW NSLP
signaling session and the NATFW NSLP signaling session can be
deleted.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
o Transitory: The node has received an asynchronous message, i.e., a
NOTIFY, and can delete the NATFW NSLP signaling session if needed
after some time. When a node has received a NOTIFY message, it
marks the signaling session as 'transitory'. This signaling
session SHOULD NOT be deleted before a minimum hold time of 30
second, i.e., it can be removed after 30 seconds or more. This
hold time ensures that the existing signaling session can be
reused by the NI, e.g., a part of a signalling session that is not
affected by the route change can be reused once the updating
request message is received.
3.3. Basic Message Processing
All NATFW messages are subject to some basic message processing when
received at a node, independent of the message type. Initially, the
syntax of the NSLP message is checked and a RESPONSE message with an
appropriate error of class 'Protocol error' (0x3) code is generated
if any problem is detected. If a message is delivered to the NATFW
NSLP, this implies that the NTLP layer has been able to correlate it
with the SID and MRI entries in its database. There is therefore
enough information to identify the source of the message and routing
information to route the message back to the NI through an
established chain of NTLP messaging associations. The message is not
further forwarded if any error in the syntax is detected. The
specific response codes stemming from the processing of objects are
described in the respective object definition section (see
Section 4). After passing this check, the NATFW NSLP node performs
authentication/authorization related checks described in Section 3.6.
Further processing is executed only if these tests have been
successfully passed, otherwise the processing stops and an error
RESPONSE is returned.
Further message processing stops whenever an error RESPONSE message
is generated, and the EXTERNAL or CREATE message is discarded.
3.4. Calculation of Signaling Session Lifetime
NATFW NSLP signaling sessions, and the corresponding policy rules
which may have been installed, are maintained via a soft-state
mechanism. Each signaling session is assigned a signaling session
lifetime and the signaling session is kept alive as long as the
lifetime is valid. After the expiration of the signaling session
lifetime, signaling sessions and policy rules MUST be removed
automatically and resources bound to them MUST be freed as well.
Signaling session lifetime is handled at every NATFW NSLP node. The
NSLP forwarders and NSLP responder MUST NOT trigger signaling session
lifetime extension refresh messages (see Section 3.7.3): this is the
task of the NSIS initiator.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
The NSIS initiator MUST choose a NATFW NSLP signaling session
lifetime value (expressed in seconds) before sending any message,
including the initial message which creates the NATFW NSLP signaling
session, to other NSLP nodes. The NATFW NSLP signaling session
lifetime value is calculated based on:
o the number of lost refresh messages that NFs should cope with;
o the end-to-end delay between the NI and NR;
o network vulnerability due to NATFW NSLP signaling session
hijacking ([RFC4081]), NATFW NSLP signaling session hijacking is
made easier when the NI does not explicitly remove the NATFW NSLP
signaling session);
o the user application's data exchange duration, in terms of time
and networking needs. This duration is modeled as R, with R the
message refresh period (in seconds);
o the load on the signaling plane. Short lifetimes imply more
frequent signaling messages.
o the acceptable time for a NATFW NSLP signaling session to be
present after it is no longer actually needed. For example, if
the existence of the NATFW NSLP signaling session implies a
monetary cost and teardown cannot be guaranteed, shorter lifetimes
would be preferable;
o the lease time of the NI's IP address. The lease time of the IP
address must be larger than chosen NATFW NSLP signaling session
lifetime, otherwise the IP address can be re-assigned to a
different node. This node may receive unwanted traffic, although
it never has requested a NAT/firewall configuration, which might
be an issue in environments with mobile hosts.
The RSVP specification [RFC2205] provides an appropriate algorithm
for calculating the NATFW NSLP signaling session lifetime as well as
means to avoid refresh message synchronization between NATFW NSLP
signaling sessions. [RFC2205] recommends:
1. The refresh message timer to be randomly set to a value in the
range [0.5R, 1.5R].
2. To avoid premature loss of state, lt (with lt being the NATFW
NSLP signaling session lifetime) must satisfy lt >= (K +
0.5)*1.5*R, where K is a small integer. Then in the worst case,
K-1 successive messages may be lost without state being deleted.
Currently K = 3 is suggested as the default. However, it may be
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
necessary to set a larger K value for hops with high loss rate.
Other algorithms could be used to define the relation between the
NATFW NSLP signaling session lifetime and the refresh message
period; the algorithm provided is only given as an example.
This requested NATFW NSLP signaling session lifetime value lt is
stored in the NATFW_LT object of the NSLP message.
NSLP forwarders and the NSLP responder can execute the following
behavior with respect to the requested lifetime handling:
Requested signaling session lifetime acceptable:
No changes to the NATFW NSLP signaling session lifetime values are
needed. The CREATE or EXTERNAL message is forwarded, if
applicable.
Signaling session lifetime can be lowered:
An NSLP forwarded or the NSLP responder MAY also lower the
requested NATFW NSLP signaling session lifetime to an acceptable
value (based on its local policies). If an NF changes the NATFW
NSLP signaling session lifetime value, it MUST store the new value
in the NATFW_LT object. The CREATE or EXTERNAL message is
forwarded.
Requested signaling session lifetime is too big:
An NSLP forwarded or the NSLP responder MAY reject the requested
NATFW NSLP signaling session lifetime value as being too big and
MUST generate an error RESPONSE message of class 'Signaling
session failure' (0x6) with response code 'Requested lifetime is
too big' (0x02) upon rejection. Lowering the lifetime is
preferred instead of generating an error message.
Requested signaling session lifetime is too small:
An NSLP forwarded or the NSLP responder MAY reject the requested
NATFW NSLP signaling session lifetime value as being to small and
MUST generate an error RESPONSE message of class 'Signaling
session failure' (0x6) with response code 'Requested lifetime is
too small' (0x10) upon rejection.
NFs or the NR MUST NOT increase the NATFW NSLP signaling session
lifetime value. Messages can be rejected on the basis of the NATFW
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
NSLP signaling session lifetime being too long when a NATFW NSLP
signaling session is first created and also on refreshes.
The NSLP responder generates a successful RESPONSE for the received
CREATE or EXTERNAL message, sets the NATFW NSLP signaling session
lifetime value in the NATFW_LT object to the above granted lifetime
and sends the message back towards NSLP initiator.
Each NSLP forwarder processes the RESPONSE message, reads and stores
the granted NATFW NSLP signaling session lifetime value. The
forwarders MUST accept the granted NATFW NSLP signaling session
lifetime, if the lifetime value is within the acceptable range. The
acceptable value refers to the value accepted by the NSLP forwarder
when processing the CREATE or EXTERNAL message. For received values
greater than the acceptable value, NSLP forwarders MUST generate a
RESPONSE message of class 'Signaling session failure' (0x6) with
response code 'Modified lifetime is too big' (0x11). For received
values lower than the values acceptable by the node local policy,
NSLP forwarders MUST generate a RESPONSE message of class 'Signaling
session failure' (0x6) with response code 'Modified lifetime is too
small' (0x12).
Figure 13 shows the procedure with an example, where an initiator
requests 60 seconds lifetime in the CREATE message and the lifetime
is shortened along the path by the forwarder to 20 seconds and by the
responder to 15 seconds. When the NSLP forwarder receives the
RESPONSE message with a NATFW NSLP signaling session lifetime value
of 15 seconds it checks whether this value is lower or equal to the
acceptable value.
+-------+ CREATE(lt=60s) +-------------+ CREATE(lt=20s) +--------+
| |---------------->| NSLP |---------------->| |
| NI | | forwarder | | NR |
| |<----------------| check 15<20 |<----------------| |
+-------+ RESPONSE(lt=15s)+-------------+ RESPONSE(lt=15s)+--------+
lt = lifetime
Figure 13: Signaling Session Lifetime Setting Example
3.5. Message Sequencing
NATFW NSLP messages need to carry an identifier so that all nodes
along the path can distinguish messages sent at different points in
time. Messages can be lost along the path or duplicated. So all
NATFW NSLP nodes should be able to identify either old messages that
have been received before (duplicated), or the case that messages
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
have been lost before (loss). For message replay protection it is
necessary to keep information about messages that have already been
received and requires every NATFW NSLP message to carry a message
sequence number (MSN), see also Section 4.2.6.
The MSN MUST be set by the NI and MUST NOT be set or modified by any
other node. The initial value for the MSN MUST be generated randomly
and MUST be unique only within the NATFW NSLP signaling session for
which it is used. The NI MUST increment the MSN by one for every
message sent. Once the MSN has reached the maximum value, the next
value it takes is zero. All NATFW NSLP nodes MUST use the algorithm
defined in [RFC1982] to detect MSN wrap-arounds.
NSIS forwarders and the responder store the MSN from the initial
CREATE or EXTERNAL packet which creates the NATFW NSLP signaling
session as the start value for the NATFW NSLP signaling session. NFs
and NRs MUST include the received MSN value in the corresponding
RESPONSE message that they generate.
When receiving a CREATE or EXTERNAL message, a NATFW NSLP node uses
the MSN given in the message to determine whether the state being
requested is different to the state already installed. The message
MUST be discarded if the received MSN value is equal to or lower than
the stored MSN value. Such a received MSN value can indicate a
duplicated and delayed message or replayed message. If the received
MSN value is greater than the already stored MSN value, the NATFW
NSLP MUST update its stored state accordingly, if permitted by all
security checks (see Section 3.6), and store the updated MSN value
accordingly.
3.6. Authentication, Authorization, and Policy Decisions
NATFW NSLP nodes receiving signaling messages MUST first check
whether this message is authenticated and authorized to perform the
requested action. NATFW NSLP nodes requiring more information than
provided MUST generate an error RESPONSE of class 'Permanent failure'
(0x5) with response code 'Authentication failed' (0x01) or with
response code 'Authorization failed' (0x02).
The NATFW NSLP is expected to run in various environments, such as
IP-based telephone systems, enterprise networks, home networks, etc.
The requirements on authentication and authorization are quite
different between these use cases. While a home gateway, or an
Internet cafe, using NSIS may well be happy with a "NATFW signaling
coming from inside the network" policy for authorization of
signaling, enterprise networks are likely to require more strongly
authenticated/authorized signaling. This enterprise scenario may
require the use of an infrastructure and administratively assigned
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
identities to operate the NATFW NSLP.
Once the NI is authenticated and authorized, another step is
performed. The requested policy rule for the NATFW NSLP signaling
session is checked against a set of policy rules, i.e., whether the
requesting NI is allowed to request the policy rule to be loaded in
the device. If this fails the NF or NR must send an error RESPONSE
of class 'Permanent failure' (0x5) and with response code
'Authorization failed' (0x02).
3.7. Protocol Operations
This section defines the protocol operations including, how to create
NATFW NSLP signaling sessions, maintain them, delete them, and how to
reserve addresses.
3.7.1. Creating Signaling Sessions
Allowing two hosts to exchange data even in the presence of
middleboxes is realized in the NATFW NSLP by use of the CREATE
message. The NI (either the data sender or a proxy) generates a
CREATE message as defined in Section 4.3.1 and hands it to the NTLP.
The NTLP forwards the whole message on the basis of the message
routing information (MRI) towards the NR. Each NSIS forwarder along
the path that implements NATFW NSLP, processes the NSLP message.
Forwarding is done hop-by-hop but may pass transparently through NSIS
forwarders which do not contain NATFW NSLP functionality and non-NSIS
aware routers between NSLP hop way points. When the message reaches
the NR, the NR can accept the request or reject it. The NR generates
a response to CREATE and this response is transported hop-by-hop
towards the NI. NATFW NSLP forwarders may reject requests at any
time. Figure 14 sketches the message flow between NI (DS in this
example), a NF (e.g., NAT), and NR (DR in this example).
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
NI Private Network NF Public Internet NR
| | |
| CREATE | |
|----------------------------->| |
| | |
| | |
| | CREATE |
| |--------------------------->|
| | |
| | RESPONSE |
| RESPONSE |<---------------------------|
|<-----------------------------| |
| | |
| | |
Figure 14: CREATE message flow with success RESPONSE
There are several processing rules for a NATFW peer when generating
and receiving CREATE messages, since this message type is used for
creating new NATFW NSLP signaling session, updating existing,
extending the lifetime and deleting NATFW NSLP signaling session.
The three latter functions operate in the same way for all kinds of
CREATE message, and are therefore described in separate sections:
o Extending the lifetime of NATFW NSLP signaling sessions is
described in Section 3.7.3.
o Deleting NATFW NSLP signaling sessions is described in
Section 3.7.4.
o Updating policy rules is described in Section 3.10.
For an initial CREATE message creating a new NATFW NSLP signaling
session, the processing of CREATE messages is different for every
NATFW node type:
o NSLP initiator: An NI only generates CREATE messages and hands
them over to the NTLP. The NI should never receive CREATE
messages and MUST discard it.
o NATFW NSLP forwarder: NFs that are unable to forward the CREATE
message to the next hop MUST generate an error RESPONSE of class
'Permanent failure' (0x6) with response code 'Did not reach the
NR' (0x07). This case may occur if the NTLP layer cannot find an
NATFW NSLP peer, either another NF or the NR, and returns an error
via the GIST API (a timeout error reported by GIST). The NSLP
message processing at the NFs depends on the middlebox type:
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
* NAT: When the initial CREATE message is received at the public
side of the NAT, it looks for a reservation made in advance, by
using a EXTERNAL message (see Section 3.7.2). The matching
process considers the received MRI information and the stored
MRI information, as described in Section 3.8. If no matching
reservation can be found, i.e., no reservation has been made in
advance, the NSLP MUST return an error RESPONSE of class
'Signaling session failure' (0x6) with response code 'No
reservation found matching the MRI of the CREATE request'
(0x03). If there is a matching reservation, the NSLP stores
the data sender's address (and if applicable port number) as
part of the source address of the policy rule ('the remembered
policy rule') to be loaded and forwards the message with the
destination address set to the internal (private in most cases)
address of NR. When the initial CREATE message is received at
the private side, the NAT binding is allocated, but not
activated (see also Appendix C.3). An error RESPONSE message
is generated, if the requested policy rule cannot be installed
later on, of class 'Signaling session failure' (0x6) with
response code 'Requested policy rule denied due to policy
conflict' (0x4). The MRI information is updated to reflect the
address, and if applicable port, translation. The NSLP message
is forwarded towards the NR with source address set to the
NAT's external address from the newly remembered binding.
* Firewall: When the initial CREATE message is received, the NSLP
just remembers the requested policy rule, but does not install
any policy rule. Afterwards, the message is forwarded towards
the NR. An error RESPONSE message is generated, if the
requested policy rule cannot be installed later on, with of
class 'Signaling session failure' (0x6) with response code
'Requested policy rule denied due to policy conflict' (0x4).
* Combined NAT and firewall: Processing at combined firewall and
NAT middleboxes is the same as in the NAT case. No policy
rules are installed. Implementations MUST take into account
the order of packet processing in the firewall and NAT
functions within the device. This will be referred to as
'order of functions' and is generally different depending on
whether the packet arrives at the external or internal side of
the middlebox.
o NSLP receiver: NRs receiving initial CREATE messages MUST reply
with a success RESPONSE of class 'Success' (0x2) with response
code set to 'All successfully processed' (0x01), if they accept
the CREATE message. Otherwise they MUST generate a RESPONSE
message with a suitable response code. RESPONSE messages are sent
back NSLP hop-by-hop towards the NI, irrespective of the response
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
codes, either success or error.
Remembered policy rules at middleboxes MUST be only installed upon
receiving a corresponding successful RESPONSE message with the same
SID as the CREATE message that caused them to be remembered. This is
a countermeasure to several problems, for example, wastage of
resources due to loading policy rules at intermediate NFs when the
CREATE message does not reach the final NR for some reason.
Processing of a RESPONSE message is different for every NSIS node
type:
o NSLP initiator: After receiving a successful RESPONSE, the data
path is configured and the DS can start sending its data to the
DR. After receiving an error RESPONSE message, the NI MAY try to
generate the CREATE message again or give up and report the
failure to the application, depending on the error condition.
o NSLP forwarder: NFs install the remembered policy rules, if a
successful RESPONSE message with matching SID is received. If an
ERROR RESPONSE message with matching SID is received, the NATFW
NSLP session is marked as dead, no policy rule is installed and
the remembered rule is discarded.
o NSIS responder: The NR should never receive RESPONSE messages and
MUST silently drop any such messages received.
NFs and the NR can also tear down the CREATE session at any time by
generating a NOTIFY message with the appropriate response code set.
3.7.2. Reserving External Addresses
NSIS signaling is intended to travel end-to-end, even in the presence
of NATs and firewalls on-path. This works well in cases where the
data sender is itself behind a NAT or a firewall as described in
Section 3.7.1. For scenarios where the data receiver is located
behind a NAT or a firewall and it needs to receive data flows from
outside its own network (usually referred to as inbound flows, see
Figure 5) the problem is more troublesome.
NSIS signaling, as well as subsequent data flows, are directed to a
particular destination IP address that must be known in advance and
reachable. Data receivers must tell the local NSIS infrastructure
(i.e., the inbound firewalls/NATs) about incoming NATFW NSLP
signaling and data flows before they can receive these flows. It is
necessary to differentiate between data receivers behind NATs and
behind firewalls for understanding the further NATFW procedures.
Data receivers that are only behind firewalls already have a public
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
IP address and they need only to be reachable for NATFW signaling.
Unlike data receivers behind just firewalls, data receivers behind
NATs do not have public IP addresses; consequently they are not
reachable for NATFW signaling by entities outside their addressing
realm.
The preceding discussion addresses the situation where a DR node that
wants to be reachable is unreachable because the NAT lacks a suitable
rule with the 'allow' action which would forward inbound data.
However, in certain scenarios, a node situated behind inbound
firewalls that do not block inbound data traffic (firewalls with
"default to allow") unless requested might wish to prevent traffic
being sent to it from specified addresses. In this case, NSIS NATFW
signaling can be used to achieve this by installing a policy rule
with its action set to 'deny' using the same mechanisms as for
'allow' rules.
The required result is obtained by sending a EXTERNAL message in the
inbound direction of the intended data flow. When using this
functionality the NSIS initiator for the 'Reserve External Address'
signaling is typically the node that will become the DR for the
eventual data flow. To distinguish this initiator from the usual
case where the NI is associated with the DS, the NI is denoted by NI+
and the NSIS responder is similarly denoted by NR+.
Public Internet Private Address
Space
Edge
NI(DS) NAT/FW NAT NR(DR)
NR+ NI+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | EXTERNAL[(DTInfo)] | EXTERNAL[(DTInfo)] |
| |<----------------------|<----------------------|
| | | |
| |RESPONSE[Success/Error]|RESPONSE[Success/Error]|
| |---------------------->|---------------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
============================================================>
Data Traffic Direction
Figure 15: Reservation message flow for DR behind NAT or firewall
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Figure 15 shows the EXTERNAL message flow for enabling inbound NATFW
NSLP signaling messages. In this case the roles of the different
NSIS entities are:
o The data receiver (DR) for the anticipated data traffic is the
NSIS initiator (NI+) for the EXTERNAL message, but becomes the
NSIS responder (NR) for following CREATE messages.
o The actual data sender (DS) will be the NSIS initiator (NI) for
later CREATE messages and may be the NSIS target of the signaling
(NR+).
o It may be necessary to use a signaling destination address (SDA)
as the actual target of the EXTERNAL message (NR+) if the DR is
located behind a NAT and the address of the DS is unknown. The
SDA is an arbitrary address in the outermost address realm on the
other side of the NAT from the DR. Typically this will be a
suitable public IP address when the 'outside' realm is the public
Internet. This choice of address causes the EXTERNAL message to
be routed through the NATs towards the outermost realm and would
force interception of the message by the outermost NAT in the
network at the boundary between the private address and the public
address realm (the edge-NAT). It may also be intercepted by other
NATs and firewalls on the path to the edge-NAT.
Basically, there are two different signaling scenarios. Either
1. the DR behind the NAT/firewall knows the IP address of the DS in
advance,
2. or the address of DS is not known in advance.
Case 1 requires the NATFW NSLP to request the path-coupled message
routing method (PC-MRM) from the NTLP. The EXTERNAL message MUST be
sent with PC-MRM (see Section 5.8.1 in [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]) with the
direction set to 'upstream' (inbound). The handling of case 2
depends on the situation of DR: If DR is solely located behind a
firewall, the EXTERNAL message MUST be sent with the PC-MRM,
direction 'upstream' (inbound), and data flow source IP address set
to wildcard. If DR is located behind a NAT, the EXTERNAL message
MUST be sent with the loose-end message routing method (LE-MRM, see
Section 5.8.2 in [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]), the destination-address set
to the signaling destination address (SDA, see also Appendix A). For
scenarios with DR being behind a firewall, special conditions apply
(see applicability statement in Appendix B). The data receiver is
challenged to determine whether it is solely located behind firewalls
or NATs, for choosing the right message routing method. This
decision can depend on a local configuration parameter, possibly
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
given through DHCP, or it could be discovered through other non-NSLP
related testing of the network configuration. It is RECOMMENDED to
use the PC-MRM with the known data sender's IP address. This gives
GIST the best possible handled to route the message 'upstream'
(outbound). It is RECOMMENDED to use the LE-MRM, if and only if the
data sender's IP address is not known and the data receiver is behind
a NAT.
For case 2 with NAT, the NI+ (which could be on the data receiver DR
or on any other host within the private network) sends the EXTERNAL
message targeted to the signaling destination address. The message
routing for the EXTERNAL message is in the reverse direction to the
normal message routing used for path-coupled signaling where the
signaling is sent outbound (as opposed to inbound in this case).
When establishing NAT bindings (and an NATFW NSLP signaling session)
the signaling direction does not matter since the data path is
modified through route pinning due to the external IP address at the
NAT. Subsequent NSIS messages (and also data traffic) will travel
through the same NAT boxes. However, this is only valid for the NAT
boxes, but not for any intermediate firewall. That is the reason for
having a separate CREATE message enabling the reservations made with
EXTERNAL at the NATs and either enabling prior reservations or
creating new pinholes at the firewalls which are encountered on the
outbound path depending on whether the inbound and outbound routes
coincide.
The EXTERNAL signaling message creates an NSIS NATFW signaling
session at any intermediate NSIS NATFW peer(s) encountered,
independent of the message routing method used. Furthermore, it has
to be ensured that the edge-NAT or edge-firewall device is discovered
as part of this process. The end host cannot be assumed to know this
device - instead the NAT or firewall box itself is assumed to know
that it is located at the outer perimeter of the network. Forwarding
of the EXTERNAL message beyond this entity is not necessary, and MUST
be prohibited as it may provide information on the capabilities of
internal hosts. It should be noted, that it is the outermost NAT or
firewall that is the edge-device that must be found during this
discovery process. For instance, when there are a NAT and afterwards
a firewall on the outbound path at the network border, the firewall
is the edge-firewall. All messages must be forwarded to the
topology-wise outermost edge-device, to ensure that this device knows
about the NATFW NSLP signaling sessions for incoming CREATE messages.
However, the NAT is still the edge-NAT because it has a public
globally routable IP address on its public side: this is not affected
by any firewall between the edge-NAT and the public network.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Possible edge arrangements are:
Public Net ----------------- Private net --------------
| Public Net|--|Edge-FW|--|FW|...|FW|--|DR|
| Public Net|--|Edge-FW|--|Edge-NAT|...|NAT or FW|--|DR|
| Public Net|--|Edge-NAT|--|NAT or FW|...|NAT or FW|--|DR|
The edge-NAT or edge-firewall device closest to the public realm
responds to the EXTERNAL message with a successful RESPONSE message.
An edge-NAT includes an NATFW_EXTERNAL-IP object (see Section 4.2.2),
carrying the public reachable IP address, and if applicable port
number.
There are several processing rules for a NATFW peer when generating
and receiving EXTERNAL messages, since this message type is used for
creating new reserve NATFW NSLP signaling sessions, updating
existing, extending the lifetime and deleting NATFW NSLP signaling
session. The three latter functions operate in the same way for all
kinds of CREATE and EXTERNAL messages, and are therefore described in
separate sections:
o Extending the lifetime of NATFW NSLP signaling sessions is
described in Section 3.7.3.
o Deleting NATFW NSLP signaling sessions is described in
Section 3.7.4.
o Updating policy rules is described in Section 3.10.
The NI+ MUST always include a NATFW_DTINFO object in the EXTERNAL
message. Especially, the LE-MRM does not include enough information
for some types of NATs (basically, those NATs which also translate
port numbers) to perform the address translation. This information
is provided in the NATFW_DTINFO (see Section 4.2.7). This
information MUST include at least the 'dst port number' and
'protocol' fields, in the NATFW_DTINFO object as these may be
required by en-route NATs, depending on the type of the NAT. All
other fields MAY be set by the NI+ to restrict the set of possible
NIs. An edge-NAT will use the information provided in the
NATFW_DTINFO object to allow only NATFW CREATE message with the MRI
matching ('src IPv4/v6 address', 'src port number', 'protocol') to be
forwarded. A NAT requiring information carried in the NATFW_DTINFO
can generate a number of error RESPONSE messages of class 'Signaling
session failure' (0x6):
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
o 'Requested policy rule denied due to policy conflict' (0x04)
o 'NATFW_DTINFO object is required' (0x07)
o 'Requested value in sub_ports field in NATFW_EFI not permitted'
(0x08)
o 'Requested IP protocol not supported' (0x09)
o 'Plain IP policy rules not permitted -- need transport layer
information' (0x0A)
o 'source IP address range is too large' (0x0C)
o 'destination IP address range is too large' (0x0D)
o 'source L4-port range is too large' (0x0E)
o 'destination L4-port range is too large' (0x0F)
Processing of EXTERNAL messages is specific to the NSIS node type:
o NSLP initiator: NI+ only generate EXTERNAL messages. When the
data sender's address information is known in advance the NI+ can
include a NATFW_DTINFO object in the EXTERNAL message, if not
anyway required to do so (see above). When the data sender's IP
address is not known, the NI+ MUST NOT include an IP address in
the NATFW_DTINFO object. The NI should never receive EXTERNAL
messages and MUST silently discard it.
o NSLP forwarder: The NSLP message processing at NFs depends on the
middlebox type:
* NAT: NATs check whether the message is received at the external
(public in most cases) address or at the internal (private)
address. If received at the external an NF MUST generate an
error RESPONSE of class 'Protocol error' (0x3) with response
code 'Received EXTERNAL request message on external side'
(0x0B). If received at the internal (private address) and the
NATFW_EFI object contains the action 'deny', an error RESPONSE
of class 'Protocol error' (0x3) with response code 'Requested
rule action not applicable' (0x06) MUST be generated. If
received at the internal address, an IP address, and if
applicable one or more ports, are reserved. If it is an edge-
NAT and there is no edge-firewall beyond, the NSLP message is
not forwarded any further and a successful RESPONSE message is
generated containing an NATFW_EXTERNAL-IP object holding the
translated address, and if applicable, port information from
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
the binding reserved as a result of the EXTERNAL message. The
RESPONSE message is sent back towards the NI+. If it is not an
edge-NAT, the NSLP message is forwarded further using the
translated IP address as signaling source address in the LE-MRM
and translated port in the NATFW_DTINFO object in the field 'DR
port number', i.e., the NATFW_DTINFO object is updated to
reflect the translated port number. The edge-NAT or any other
NAT MUST reject EXTERNAL messages not carrying a NATFW_DTINFO
object or if the address information within this object is
invalid or is not compliant with local policies (e.g., the
information provided relates to a range of addresses
('wildcarded') but the edge-NAT requires exact information
about DS' IP address and port) with the above mentioned
response codes.
* Firewall: Non edge-firewalls remember the requested policy
rule, keep NATFW NSLP signaling session state, and forward the
message. Edge-firewalls stop forwarding the EXTERNAL message.
The policy rule is immediately loaded if the action in the
NATFW_EFI object is set to 'deny' and the node is an edge-
firewall. The policy rule is remembered, but not activated, if
the action in the NATFW_EFI object is set to 'allow'. In both
cases, a successful RESPONSE message is generated. If the
action is 'allow', and the NATFW_DTINFO object is included, and
the MRM is set to LE-MRM in the request, additionally an
NATFW_EXTERNAL-IP object is included in the RESPONSE message,
holding the translated address, and if applicable port,
information. This information is obtained from the
NATFW_DTINFO object's 'DR port number' and the source-address
of the LE-MRM.
* Combined NAT and firewall: Processing at combined firewall and
NAT middleboxes is the same as in the NAT case.
o NSLP receiver: This type of message should never be received by
any NR+ and it MUST generate an error RESPONSE message of class
'Permanent failure' (0x5) with response code 'No edge-device here'
(0x06).
Processing of a RESPONSE message is different for every NSIS node
type:
o NSLP initiator: Upon receiving a successful RESPONSE message, the
NI+ can rely on the requested configuration for future inbound
NATFW NSLP signaling sessions. If the response contains an
NATFW_EXTERNAL-IP object, the NI can use IP address and port pairs
carried for further application signaling. After receiving a
error RESPONSE message, the NI+ MAY try to generate the EXTERNAL
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
message again or give up and report the failure to the
application, depending on the error condition.
o NSLP forwarder: NFs simply forward this message as long as they
keep state for the requested reservation, if the RESPONSE message
contains NATFW_INFO object with class set to 'Success' (0x2). If
the RESPONSE message contains NATFW_INFO object with class set not
to 'Success' (0x2), the NATFW NSLP signaling session is marked as
dead.
o NSIS responder: This type of message should never be received by
any NR+. The NF should never receive response messages and MUST
silently discard it.
NFs and the NR can also tear down the EXTERNAL session at any time by
generating a NOTIFY message with the appropriate response code set.
Reservations with action 'allow' made with EXTERNAL MUST be enabled
by a subsequent CREATE message. A reservation made with EXTERNAL
(independent of selected action) is kept alive as long as the NI+
refreshes the particular NATFW NSLP signaling session and it can be
reused for multiple, different CREATE messages. An NI+ may decide to
teardown a reservation immediately after receiving a CREATE message.
This implies that a new NATFW NSLP signaling session must be created
for each new CREATE message. The CREATE message does not re-use the
NATFW NSLP signaling session created by EXTERNAL.
Without using CREATE (see Section 3.7.1) or EXTERNAL in proxy mode
(see Section 3.7.6) no data traffic will be forwarded to DR beyond
the edge-NAT or edge-firewall. The only function of EXTERNAL is to
ensure that subsequent CREATE messages traveling towards the NR will
be forwarded across the public-private boundary towards the DR.
Correlation of incoming CREATE messages to EXTERNAL reservation
states is described in Section 3.8.
3.7.3. NATFW NSLP Signaling Session Refresh
NATFW NSLP signaling sessions are maintained on a soft-state basis.
After a specified timeout, sessions and corresponding policy rules
are removed automatically by the middlebox, if they are not
refreshed. Soft-state is created by CREATE and EXTERNAL and the
maintenance of this state must be done by these messages. State
created by CREATE must be maintained by CREATE, state created by
EXTERNAL must be maintained by EXTERNAL. Refresh messages, are
messages carrying the same session ID as the initial message and a
NATFW_LT lifetime object with a lifetime greater than zero. Messages
with the same SID but carrying a different MRI are treated as updates
of the policy rules and are processed as defined in Section 3.10.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Every refresh CREATE or EXTERNAL message MUST be acknowledged by an
appropriate response message generated by the NR. Upon reception by
each NSIS forwarder, the state for the given session ID is extended
by the NATFW NSLP signaling session refresh period, a period of time
calculated based on a proposed refresh message period. The new
(extended) lifetime of a NATFW NSLP signaling session is calculated
as current local time plus proposed lifetime value (NATFW NSLP
signaling session refresh period). Section 3.4 defines the process
of calculating lifetimes in detail.
NI Public Internet NAT Private address NR
| | space |
| CREATE[lifetime > 0] | |
|----------------------------->| |
| | |
| | |
| | CREATE[lifetime > 0] |
| |--------------------------->|
| | |
| | RESPONSE[Success/Error] |
| RESPONSE[Success/Error] |<---------------------------|
|<-----------------------------| |
| | |
| | |
Figure 16: Successful Refresh Message Flow, CREATE as example
Processing of NATFW NSLP signaling session refresh CREATE and
EXTERNAL messages is different for every NSIS node type:
o NSLP initiator: The NI/NI+ can generate NATFW NSLP signaling
session refresh CREATE/EXTERNAL messages before the NATFW NSLP
signaling session times out. The rate at which the refresh
CREATE/EXTERNAL messages are sent and their relation to the NATFW
NSLP signaling session state lifetime is discussed further in
Section 3.4.
o NSLP forwarder: Processing of this message is independent of the
middlebox type and is as described in Section 3.4.
o NSLP responder: NRs accepting a NATFW NSLP signaling session
refresh CREATE/EXTERNAL message generate a successful RESPONSE
message, including the granted lifetime value of Section 3.4 in a
NATFW_LT object.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
3.7.4. Deleting Signaling Sessions
NATFW NSLP signaling sessions can be deleted at any time. NSLP
initiators can trigger this deletion by using a CREATE or EXTERNAL
messages with a lifetime value set to 0, as shown in Figure 17.
Whether a CREATE or EXTERNAL message type is used, depends on how the
NATFW NSLP signaling session was created.
NI Public Internet NAT Private address NR
| | space |
| CREATE[lifetime=0] | |
|----------------------------->| |
| | |
| | CREATE[lifetime=0] |
| |--------------------------->|
| | |
Figure 17: Delete message flow, CREATE as example
NSLP nodes receiving this message delete the NATFW NSLP signaling
session immediately. Policy rules associated with this particular
NATFW NSLP signaling session MUST be also deleted immediately. This
message is forwarded until it reaches the final NR. The CREATE/
EXTERNAL message with a lifetime value of 0, does not generate any
response, neither positive nor negative, since there is no NSIS state
left at the nodes along the path.
NSIS initiators can use CREATE/EXTERNAL message with lifetime set to
zero in an aggregated way, such that a single CREATE or EXTERNAL
message is terminating multiple NATFW NSLP signaling sessions. NIs
can follow this procedure if they like to aggregate NATFW NSLP
signaling session deletion requests: The NI uses the CREATE or
EXTERNAL message with the session ID set to zero and the MRI's
source-address set to its used IP address. All other fields of the
respective NATFW NSLP signaling sessions to be terminated are set as
well, otherwise these fields are completely wildcarded. The NSLP
message is transferred to the NTLP requesting 'explicit routing' as
described in Sections 5.2.1 and 7.1.4. in [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp].
The outbound NF receiving such an aggregated CREATE or EXTERNAL
message MUST reject it with an error RESPONSE of class 'Permanent
failure' (0x5) with response code 'Authentication failed' (0x01) if
the authentication fails and with an error RESPONSE of class
'Permanent failure' (0x5) with response code 'Authorization failed'
(0x02) if the authorization fails. Per NATFW NSLP signaling session
proof of ownership, as it is defined in this memo, is not possible
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
anymore when using this aggregated way. However, the outbound NF can
use the relationship between the information of the received CREATE
or EXTERNAL message and the GIST messaging association where the
request has been received. The outbound NF MUST only accept this
aggregated CREATE or EXTERNAL message through already established
GIST messaging associations with the NI. The outbound NF MUST NOT
propagate this aggregated CREATE or EXTERNAL message but it MAY
generate and forward per NATFW NSLP signaling session CREATE or
EXTERNAL messages.
3.7.5. Reporting Asynchronous Events
NATFW NSLP forwarders and NATFW NSLP responders must have the ability
to report asynchronous events to other NATFW NSLP nodes, especially
to allow reporting back to the NATFW NSLP initiator. Such
asynchronous events may be premature NATFW NSLP signaling session
termination, changes in local policies, route change or any other
reason that indicates change of the NATFW NSLP signaling session
state.
NFs and NRs may generate NOTIFY messages upon asynchronous events,
with a NATFW_INFO object indicating the reason for event. These
reasons can be carried in the NATFW_INFO object (class MUST be set to
'Informational' (0x1)) within the NOTIFY message. This list shows
the response codes and the associated actions to take at NFs and the
NI:
o 'Route change: possible route change on the outbound path' (0x01):
Follow instructions in Section 3.9. This MUST be sent inbound and
outbound, if the signalling session is any state expect
'Transitory'. The NOTIFY message for signalling sessions in state
transitory MUST be discarded, as the signalling session is anyhow
transitory. The outbound NOTIFY message MUST be sent with
explicit routing by providing the SII-Handle to the NTLP.
o 'Re-authentication required' (0x02): The NI should re-send the
authentication. This MUST be sent inbound.
o 'NATFW node is going down soon' (0x03): The NI and other NFs
should be prepared for a service interruption at any time. This
message MAY be sent inbound and outbound.
o 'NATFW signaling session lifetime expired' (0x04): The NATFW
signaling session has been expired and the signaling session is
invalid now. NFs MUST mark the signaling session as 'Dead'. This
message MAY be sent inbound and outbound.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
o 'NATFW signaling session terminated' (0x05): The NATFW signaling
session has been terminated by any reason and the signaling
session is invalid now. NFs MUST mark the signaling session as
'Dead'. This message MAY be sent inbound and outbound.
NOTIFY messages are always sent hop-by-hop inbound towards NI until
they reach NI or outbound towards the NR as indicated in the list
above.
The initial processing when receiving a NOTIFY message is the same
for all NATFW nodes: NATFW nodes MUST only accept NOTIFY messages
through already established NTLP messaging associations. The further
processing is different for each NATFW NSLP node type and depends on
the events notified:
o NSLP initiator: NIs analyze the notified event and behave
appropriately based on the event type. NIs MUST NOT generate
NOTIFY messages.
o NSLP forwarder: NFs analyze the notified event and behave based on
the above description per response code. NFs SHOULD generate
NOTIFY messages upon asynchronous events and forward them inbound
towards the NI or outbound towards the NR, depending on the
received direction, i.e., inbound messages MUST be forwarded
further inbound and outbound messages MUST be forwarded further
outbound. NFs MUST silently discard NOTIFY messages that have
been received outbound but are only allowed to be sent inbound,
e.g. 'Re-authentication required' (0x02).
o NSLP responder: NRs SHOULD generate NOTIFY messages upon
asynchronous events including a response code based on the
reported event. The NR MUST silently discard NOTIFY messages that
have been received outbound but are only allowed to be sent
inbound, e.g. 'Re-authentication required' (0x02),
NATFW NSLP forwarders, keeping multiple NATFW NSLP signaling sessions
at the same time, can experience problems when shutting down service
suddenly. This sudden shutdown can be result of node local failure,
for instance, due to a hardware failure. This NF generates NOTIFY
messages for each of the NATFW NSLP signaling sessions and tries to
send them inbound. Due to the number of NOTIFY messages to be sent,
the shutdown of the node may be unnecessarily prolonged, since not
all messages can be sent at the same time. This case can be
described as a NOTIFY storm, if a multitude of NATFW NSLP signaling
sessions is involved.
To avoid the need of generating per NATFW NSLP signaling session
NOTIFY messages in such a scenario described or similar cases, NFs
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
SHOULD follow this procedure: The NF uses the NOTIFY message with the
session ID in the NTLP set to zero, with the MRI completely
wildcarded, using the 'explicit routing' as described in Sections
5.2.1 and 7.1.4. in [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]. The inbound NF receiving
this type of NOTIFY immediately regards all NATFW NSLP signaling
sessions from that peer matching the MRI as void. This message will
typically result in multiple NOTIFY messages at the inbound NF, i.e.,
the NF can generate per terminated NATFW NSLP signaling session a
NOTIFY message. However, a NF MAY aggregate again the NOTIFY
messages as described here.
3.7.6. Proxy Mode of Operation
Some migration scenarios need specialized support to cope with cases
where NSIS is only deployed in same areas of the Internet. End-to-
end signaling is going to fail without NSIS support at or near both
data sender and data receiver terminals. A proxy mode of operation
is needed. This proxy mode of operation must terminate the NATFW
NSLP signaling topologically-wise as close as possible to the
terminal for which it is proxying and proxy all messages. This NATFW
NSLP node doing the proxying of the signaling messages becomes either
the NI or the NR for the particular NATFW NSLP signaling session,
depending on whether it is the DS or DR that does not support NSIS.
Typically, the edge-NAT or the edge-firewall would be used to proxy
NATFW NSLP messages.
This proxy mode operation does not require any new CREATE or EXTERNAL
message type, but relies on extended CREATE and EXTERNAL message
types. They are called respectively CREATE-PROXY and EXTERNAL-PROXY
and are distinguished by setting the P flag in the NSLP header to
P=1. This flag instructs edge-NATs and edge-firewalls receiving them
to operate in proxy mode for the NATFW NSLP signaling session in
question. The semantics of the CREATE and EXTERNAL message types are
not changed and the behavior of the various node types is as defined
in Section 3.7.1 and Section 3.7.2, except for the proxying node.
The following paragraphs describe the proxy mode operation for data
receivers behind middleboxes and data senders behind middleboxes.
3.7.6.1. Proxying for a Data Sender
The NATFW NSLP gives the NR the ability to install state on the
inbound path towards the data sender for outbound data packets, even
when only the receiving side is running NSIS (as shown in Figure 18).
The goal of the method described is to trigger the edge-NAT/
edge-firewall to generate a CREATE message on behalf of the data
receiver. In this case, an NR can signal towards the network border
as it is performed in the standard EXTERNAL message handling scenario
as in Section 3.7.2. The message is forwarded until the edge-NAT/
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
edge-firewall is reached. A public IP address and port number is
reserved at an edge-NAT/edge-firewall. As shown in Figure 18, unlike
the standard EXTERNAL message handling case, the edge-NAT/
edge-firewall is triggered to send a CREATE message on a new reverse
path which traverse several firewalls or NATs. The new reverse path
for CREATE is necessary to handle routing asymmetries between the
edge-NAT/edge-firewall and DR. It must be stressed that the
semantics of the CREATE and EXTERNAL messages is not changed, i.e.,
each is processed as described earlier.
DS Public Internet NAT/FW Private address DR
No NI NF space NR
NR+ NI+
| | EXTERNAL-PROXY[(DTInfo)] |
| |<------------------------- |
| | RESPONSE[Error/Success] |
| | ---------------------- > |
| | CREATE |
| | ------------------------> |
| | RESPONSE[Error/Success] |
| | <---------------------- |
| | |
Figure 18: EXTERNAL Triggering Sending of CREATE Message
A NATFW_NONCE object, carried in the EXTERNAL and CREATE message, is
used to build the relationship between received CREATEs at the
message initiator. An NI+ uses the presence of the NATFW_NONCE
object to correlate it to the particular EXTERNAL-PROXY. The absence
of a NONCE object indicates a CREATE initiated by the DS and not by
the edge-NAT. The two signaling sessions, i.e., the session for
EXTERNAL-PROXY and the session for CREATE, are not independent. The
primary session is the EXTERNAL-PROXY session. The CREATE session is
secondary to the EXTERNAL-PROXY session, i.e., the CREATE session is
valid as long as the EXTERNAL-PROXY session is the signaling states
'Established' or 'Transitory'. There is no CREATE session in any
other signaling state of the EXTERNAL-PROXY, i.e., 'pending' or
'dead'. This ensures a faith-sharing between both signaling
sessions.
These processing rules of EXTERNAL-PROXY messages are added to the
regular EXTERNAL processing:
o NSLP initiator (NI+): The NI+ MUST take the session ID (SID) value
of the EXTERNAL-PROXY session as the nonce value of the
NATFW_NONCE object.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
o NSLP forwarder being either edge-NAT or edge-firewall: When the NF
accepts a EXTERNAL-PROXY message, it generates a successful
RESPONSE message as if it were the NR and additionally, it
generates a CREATE message as defined in Section 3.7.1 and
includes a NATFW_NONCE object having the same value as of the
received NATFW_NONCE object. The NF MUST NOT generate a CREATE-
PROXY message. The NF MUST refresh the CREATE message signaling
session only if a EXTERNAL-PROXY refresh message has been received
first. This also includes tearing down signaling sessions, i.e.,
the NF must teardown the CREATE signaling session only if a
EXTERNAL-PROXY message with lifetime set to 0 has been received
first.
The scenario described in this section challenges the data receiver
because it must make a correct assumption about the data sender's
ability to use NSIS NATFW NSLP signaling. It is possible for the DR
to make the wrong assumption in two different ways:
a) the DS is NSIS unaware but the DR assumes the DS to be NSIS
aware and
b) the DS is NSIS aware but the DR assumes the DS to be NSIS
unaware.
Case a) will result in middleboxes blocking the data traffic, since
DS will never send the expected CREATE message. Case b) will result
in the DR successfully requesting proxy mode support by the edge-NAT
or edge-firewall. The edge-NAT/edge-firewall will send CREATE
messages and DS will send CREATE messages as well. Both CREATE
messages are handled as separated NATFW NSLP signaling sessions and
therefore the common rules per NATFW NSLP signaling session apply;
the NATFW_NONCE object is used to differentiate CREATE messages
generated by the edge-NAT/edge-firewall from NI initiated CREATE
messages. It is the NR's responsibility to decide whether to
teardown the EXTERNAL-PROXY signaling sessions in the case where the
data sender's side is NSIS aware, but was incorrectly assumed not to
be so by the DR. It is RECOMMENDED that a DR behind NATs uses the
proxy mode of operation by default, unless the DR knows that the DS
is NSIS aware. The DR MAY cache information about data senders which
it has found to be NSIS aware in past NATFW NSLP signaling sessions.
There is a possible race condition between the RESPONSE message to
the EXTERNAL-PROXY and the CREATE message generated by the edge-NAT.
The CREATE message can arrive earlier than the RESPONSE message. An
NI+ MUST accept CREATE messages generated by the edge-NAT even if the
RESPONSE message to the EXTERNAL-PROXY was not received.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
3.7.6.2. Proxying for a Data Receiver
As with data receivers behind middleboxes, data senders behind
middleboxes can require proxy mode support. The issue here is that
there is no NSIS support at the data receiver's side and, by default,
there will be no response to CREATE messages. This scenario requires
the last NSIS NATFW NSLP aware node to terminate the forwarding and
to proxy the response to the CREATE message, meaning that this node
is generating RESPONSE messages. This last node may be an edge-NAT/
edge-firewall, or any other NATFW NSLP peer, that detects that there
is no NR available (probably as a result of GIST timeouts but there
may be other triggers).
DS Private Address NAT/FW Public Internet NR
NI Space NF no NR
| | |
| CREATE-PROXY | |
|------------------------------>| |
| | |
| RESPONSE[SUCCESS/ERROR] | |
|<------------------------------| |
| | |
Figure 19: Proxy Mode CREATE Message Flow
The processing of CREATE-PROXY messages and RESPONSE messages is
similar to Section 3.7.1, except that forwarding is stopped at the
edge-NAT/edge-firewall. The edge-NAT/edge-firewall responds back to
NI according to the situation (error/success) and will be the NR for
future NATFW NSLP communication.
The NI can choose the proxy mode of operation although the DR is NSIS
aware. The CREATE-PROXY mode would not configure all NATs and
firewalls along the data path, since it is terminated at the edge-
device. Any device beyond this point will never receive any NATFW
NSLP signaling for this flow.
3.8. De-Multiplexing at NATs
Section 3.7.2 describes how NSIS nodes behind NATs can obtain a
public reachable IP address and port number at a NAT and and how the
resulting mapping rule can be activated by using CREATE messages (see
Section 3.7.1). The information about the public IP address/port
number can be transmitted via an application level signaling protocol
and/or third party to the communication partner that would like to
send data toward the host behind the NAT. However, NSIS signaling
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
flows are sent towards the address of the NAT at which this
particular IP address and port number is allocated and not directly
to the allocated IP address and port number. The NATFW NSLP
forwarder at this NAT needs to know how the incoming NSLP CREATE
messages are related to reserved addresses, meaning how to de-
multiplex incoming NSIS CREATE messages.
The de-multiplexing method uses information stored at the local NATFW
NSLP node and in the policy rule. The policy rule uses the LE-MRM
MRI source-address (see [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]) as the flow destination
IP address and the network-layer-version as IP version. The external
IP address at the NAT is stored as the external flow destination IP
address. All other parameters of the policy rule other than the flow
destination IP address are wildcarded if no NATFW_DTINFO object is
included in the EXTERNAL message. The LE-MRM MRI destination-address
MUST NOT be used in the policy rule, since it is solely a signaling
destination address.
If the NATFW_DTINFO object is included in the EXTERNAL message, the
policy rule is filled with further information. The 'dst port
number' field of the NATFW_DTINFO is stored as the flow destination
port number. The 'protocol' field is stored as the flow protocol.
The 'src port number' field is stored as the flow source port number.
The 'data sender's IPv4 address' is stored as the flow source IP
address. Note that some of these field can contain wildcards.
When receiving a CREATE message at the NATFW NSLP it uses the flow
information stored in the MRI to do the matching process. This table
shows the parameters to be compared against each others. Note that
not all parameters can be present in a MRI at the same time.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Flow parameter (Policy Rule) | MRI parameter (CREATE message) |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| IP version | network-layer-version |
| | |
| Protocol | IP-protocol |
| | |
| source IP address (w) | source-address (w) |
| | |
| external IP address | destination-address |
| | |
| destination IP address (n/u) | N/A |
| | |
| source port number (w) | L4-source-port (w) |
| | |
| external port number (w) | L4-destination-port (w) |
| | |
| destination port number (n/u) | N/A |
| | |
| IPsec-SPI | ipsec-SPI |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------+
Table entries marked with (w) can be wildcarded and entries marked
with (n/u) are not used for the matching.
Table 1
3.9. Reacting to Route Changes
The NATFW NSLP needs to react to route changes in the data path.
This assumes the capability to detect route changes, to perform NAT
and firewall configuration on the new path and possibly to tear down
NATFW NSLP signaling session state on the old path. The detection of
route changes is described in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp] and
the NATFW NSLP relies on notifications about route changes by the
NTLP. This notification will be conveyed by the API between NTLP and
NSLP, which is out of scope of this memo.
A NATFW NSLP node other than the NI or NI+ detecting a route change,
by means described in the NTLP specification or others, generates a
NOTIFY message indicating this change and sends this inbound towards
NI and outbound towards the NR (see also Section 3.7.5.).
Intermediate NFs on the way to the NI can use this information to
decide later if their NATFW NSLP signaling session can be deleted
locally, if they do not receive an update within a certain time
period, as described in Section 3.2.8. It is important to consider
the transport limitations of NOTIFY messages as mandated in
Section 3.7.5.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
The NI receiving this NOTIFY message MAY generate a new CREATE or
EXTERNAL message and send it towards the NATFW NSLP signaling
session's NI as for the initial message using the same session ID.
All the remaining processing and message forwarding, such as NSLP
next hop discovery, is subject to regular NSLP processing as
described in the particular sections. Normal routing will guide the
new CREATE or EXTERNAL message to the correct NFs along the changed
route. NFs that were on the original path receiving these new CREATE
or EXTERNAL messages (see also Section 3.10), can use the session ID
to update the existing NATFW NSLP signaling session, whereas NFs that
were not on the original path will create new state for this NATFW
NSLP signaling session. The next section describes how policy rules
are updated.
3.10. Updating Policy Rules
NSIS initiators can request an update of the installed/reserved
policy rules at any time within a NATFW NSLP signaling session.
Updates to policy rules can be required due to node mobility (NI is
moving from one IP address to another), route changes (this can
result in a different NAT mapping at a different NAT device), or the
wish of the NI to simply change the rule. NIs can update policy
rules in existing NATFW NSLP signaling sessions by sending an
appropriate CREATE or EXTERNAL message (similar to Section 3.4) with
modified message routing information (MRI) as compared with that
installed previously, but using the existing session ID to identify
the intended target of the update. With respect to authorization and
authentication, this update CREATE or EXTERNAL message is treated in
exactly the same way as any initial message. Therefore, any node
along in the NATFW NSLP signaling session can reject the update with
an error RESPONSE message, as defined in the previous sections.
The message processing and forwarding is executed as defined in the
particular sections. A NF or the NR receiving an update, simply
replaces the installed policy rules installed in the firewall/NAT.
The local procedures on how to update the MRI in the firewall/NAT is
out of scope of this memo.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
4. NATFW NSLP Message Components
A NATFW NSLP message consists of a NSLP header and one or more
objects following the header. The NSLP header is carried in all
NATFW NSLP messages and objects are Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoded
using big endian (network ordered) binary data representations.
Header and objects are aligned to 32 bit boundaries and object
lengths that are not multiples of 32 bits must be padded to the next
higher 32 bit multiple.
The whole NSLP message is carried as payload of a NTLP message.
Note that the notation 0x is used to indicate hexadecimal numbers.
4.1. NSLP Header
All GIST NSLP-Data objects for the NATFW NSLP MUST contain this
common header as the first 32 bits of the object (this is not the
same as the GIST Common Header). It contains two fields, the NSLP
message type and the P Flag, plus two reserved fields. The total
length is 32 bits. The layout of the NSLP header is defined by
Figure 20.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message type |P| reserved | reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 20: Common NSLP header
The reserved field MUST be set to zero in the NATFW NSLP header
before sending and MUST be ignored during processing of the header.
The defined messages types are:
o IANA-TBD(1) : CREATE
o IANA-TBD(2) : EXTERNAL
o IANA-TBD(3) : RESPONSE
o IANA-TBD(4) : NOTIFY
If a message with another type is received, an error RESPONSE of
class 'Protocol error' (0x3) with response code 'Illegal message
type' (0x01) MUST be generated.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
The P flag indicates the usage of proxy mode. If proxy mode is used
it MUST be set to 1. Proxy mode usage MUST only be used in
combination with the message types CREATE and EXTERNAL. The P flag
MUST be ignored when processing messages with type RESPONSE or
NOTIFY.
4.2. NSLP Objects
NATFW NSLP objects use a common header format defined by Figure 21.
The object header contains these fields: two flags, two reserved
bits, the NSLP object type, a rerserved field of 4 bits, and the
object length. Its total length is 32 bits.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A|B|r|r| Object Type |r|r|r|r| Object Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 21: Common NSLP object header
The object length field contains the total length of the object
without the object header. The unit is a word, consisting of 4
octets. The particular values of type and length for each NSLP
object are listed in the subsequent sections that define the NSLP
objects. An error RESPONSE of class 'Protocol error' (0x3) with
response code 'Wrong object length' (0x07) MUST be generated if the
length given for the object in the object header did not match the
length of the object data present. The two leading bits of the NSLP
object header are used to signal the desired treatment for objects
whose treatment has not been defined in this memo (see
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp], Section A.2.1), i.e., the Object Type has not
been defined. NATFW NSLP uses a subset of the categories defined in
GIST:
o AB=00 ("Mandatory"): If the object is not understood, the entire
message containing it MUST be rejected with an error RESPONSE of
class 'Protocol error' (0x3) with response code 'Unknown object
present' (0x06).
o AB=01 ("Optional"): If the object is not understood, it should be
deleted and then the rest of the message processed as usual.
o AB=10 ("Forward"): If the object is not understood, it should be
retained unchanged in any message forwarded as a result of message
processing, but not stored locally.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
The combination AB=11 MUST NOT be used and an error RESPONSE of class
'Protocol error' (0x3) with response code 'Invalid Flag-Field
combination' (0x09) MUST be generated.
The following sections do not repeat the common NSLP object header,
they just list the type and the length.
4.2.1. Signaling Session Lifetime Object
The signaling session lifetime object carries the requested or
granted lifetime of a NATFW NSLP signaling session measured in
seconds.
Type: NATFW_LT (IANA-TBD)
Length: 1
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NATFW NSLP signaling session lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 22: Signaling Session Lifetime object
4.2.2. External Address Object
The external address object can be included in RESPONSE messages
(Section 4.3.3) only. It carries the publicly reachable IP address,
and if applicable port number, at an edge-NAT.
Type: NATFW_EXTERNAL-IP (IANA-TBD)
Length: 2
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| port number | reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 23: External Address Object for IPv4 addresses
Please note that the field 'port number' MUST be set to 0 if only an
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
IP address has been reserved, for instance, by a traditional NAT. A
port number of 0 MUST be ignored in processing this object.
4.2.3. Extended Flow Information Object
In general, flow information is kept in the message routing
information (MRI) of the NTLP. Nevertheless, some additional
information may be required for NSLP operations. The 'extended flow
information' object carries this additional information about the
action of the policy rule for firewalls/NATs and contiguous port .
Type: NATFW_EFI (IANA-TBD)
Length: 1
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rule action | sub_ports |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 24: Extended Flow Information
This object has two fields, 'rule action' and 'sub_ports'. The 'rule
action' field has these meanings:
o 0x0001: Allow: A policy rule with this action allows data traffic
to traverse the middlebox and the NATFW NSLP MUST allow NSLP
signaling to be forwarded.
o 0x0002: Deny: A policy rule with this action blocks data traffic
from traversing the middlebox and the NATFW NSLP MUST NOT allow
NSLP signaling to be forwarded.
If the 'rule action' field contains neither 0x0001 nor 0x0002, an
error RESPONSE of class 'Signaling session failure' (0x6) with
response code 'Unknown policy rule action' (0x05) MUST be generated.
The 'sub_ports' field contains the number of contiguous transport
layer ports to which this rule applies. The default value of this
field is 0, i.e., only the port specified in the NTLP's MRM or
NATFW_DTINFO object is used for the policy rule. A value of 1
indicates that additionally to the port specified in the NTLP's MRM
(port1), a second port (port2) is used. This value of port 2 is
calculated as: port2 = port1 + 1. Other values than 0 or 1 MUST NOT
be used in this field and an error RESPONSE of class 'Signaling
session failure' (0x6) with response code 'Requested value in
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
sub_ports field in NATFW_EFI not permitted' (0x08) MUST be generated.
This two contiguous port numbered ports, can be used by legacy voice
over IP equipment. This legacy equipment assumes that two adjacent
port numbers for its RTP/RTCP flows respectively.
4.2.4. Information Code Object
This object carries the response code, which may be indications for
either a successful or failed CREATE or EXTERNAL message depending on
the value of the 'response code' field.
Type: NATFW_INFO (IANA-TBD)
Length: 1
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Resv. | Class | Response Code |r|r|r|r| Object Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 25: Information Code Object
The field 'resv.' is reserved for future extensions and MUST be set
to zero when generating such an object and MUST be ignored when
receiving. The 'Object Type' field contains the type of the object
causing the error. The value of 'Object Type' is set to 0, if no
object is concerned. The leading fours bits marked with 'r' are
always set to zero and ignored. The 4 bit class field contains the
severity class. The following classes are defined:
o 0x0: Reserved
o 0x1: Informational (NOTIFY only)
o 0x2: Success
o 0x3: Protocol error
o 0x4: Transient failure
o 0x5: Permanent failure
o 0x6: Signaling session failure
Within each severity class a number of responses values are defined
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
o Informational:
* 0x01: Route change: possible route change on the outbound path.
* 0x02: Re-authentication required.
* 0x03: NATFW node is going down soon.
* 0x04: NATFW signaling session lifetime expired.
* 0x05: NATFW signaling session terminated.
o Success:
* 0x01: All successfully processed.
o Protocol error:
* 0x01: Illegal message type: the type given in the Message Type
field of the NSLP header is unknown.
* 0x02: Wrong message length: the length given for the message in
the NSLP header does not match the length of the message data.
* 0x03: Bad flags value: an undefined flag or combination of
flags was set in the NSLP header.
* 0x04: Mandatory object missing: an object required in a message
of this type was missing.
* 0x05: Illegal object present: an object was present which must
not be used in a message of this type.
* 0x06: Unknown object present: an object of an unknown type was
present in the message.
* 0x07: Wrong object length: the length given for the object in
the object header did not match the length of the object data
present.
* 0x08: Unknown object field value: a field in an object had an
unknown value.
* 0x09: Invalid Flag-Field combination: An object contains an
invalid combination of flags and/or fields.
* 0x0A: Duplicate object present.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
* 0x0B: Received EXTERNAL request message on external side.
o Transient failure:
* 0x01: Requested resources temporarily not available.
o Permanent failure:
* 0x01: Authentication failed.
* 0x02: Authorization failed.
* 0x04: Internal or system error.
* 0x06: No edge-device here.
* 0x07: Did not reach the NR.
o Signaling session failure:
* 0x01: Session terminated asynchronously.
* 0x02: Requested lifetime is too big.
* 0x03: No reservation found matching the MRI of the CREATE
request.
* 0x04: Requested policy rule denied due to policy conflict.
* 0x05: Unknown policy rule action.
* 0x06: Requested rule action not applicable.
* 0x07: NATFW_DTINFO object is required.
* 0x08: Requested value in sub_ports field in NATFW_EFI not
permitted.
* 0x09: Requested IP protocol not supported.
* 0x0A: Plain IP policy rules not permitted -- need transport
layer information.
* 0x0B: ICMP type value not permitted.
* 0x0C: source IP address range is too large.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
* 0x0D: destination IP address range is too large.
* 0x0E: source L4-port range is too large.
* 0x0F: destination L4-port range is too large.
* 0x10: Requested lifetime is too small.
* 0x11: Modified lifetime is too big.
* 0x12: Modified lifetime is too small.
4.2.5. Nonce Object
This object carries the nonce value as described in Section 3.7.6.
Type: NATFW_NONCE (IANA-TBD)
Length: 1
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 26: Nonce Object
4.2.6. Message Sequence Number Object
This object carries the MSN value as described in Section 3.5.
Type: NATFW_MSN (IANA-TBD)
Length: 1
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| message sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 27: Message Sequence Number Object
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
4.2.7. Data Terminal Information Object
The 'data terminal information' object carries additional information
MUST be included the EXTERNAL message. EXTERNAL messages are
transported by the NTLP using the Loose-End message routing method
(LE-MRM). The LE-MRM contains only DR's IP address and a signaling
destination address (destination address). This destination address
is used for message routing only and is not necessarily reflecting
the address of the data sender. This object contains information
about (if applicable) DR's port number (the destination port number),
DS' port number (the source port number), the used transport
protocol, the prefix length of the IP address, and DS' IP address.
Type: NATFW_DTINFO (IANA-TBD)
Length: variable. Maximum 3.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I|P|S| reserved | sender prefix | protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: DR port number | DS port number :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: IPsec-SPI :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data sender's IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 28: Data Terminal IPv4 Address Object
The flags are:
o I: I=1 means that 'protocol' should be interpreted.
o P: P=1 means that 'dst port number' and 'src port number' are
present and should be interpreted.
o S: S=1 means that SPI is present and should be interpreted.
The SPI field is only present if S is set. The port numbers are only
present if P is set. The flags P and S MUST NOT be set at the same
time. An error RESPONSE of class 'Protocol error' (0x3) with
response code 'Invalid Flag-Field combination' (0x09) MUST be
generated if they are both set. If either P or S is set, I MUST be
set as well and the protocol field MUST carry the particular
protocol. An error RESPONSE of class 'Protocol error' (0x3) with
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
response code 'Invalid Flag-Field combination' (0x09) MUST be
generated if S or P is set but I is not set.
The fields MUST be interpreted according to these rules:
o (data) sender prefix: This parameter indicates the prefix length
of the 'data sender's IP address' in bits. For instance, a full
IPv4 address requires 'sender prefix' to be set to 32. A value of
0 indicates an IP address wildcard.
o protocol: The IP protocol field. This field MUST be interpreted
if I=1, otherwise it MUST be set to 0 and MUST be ignored.
o DR port number: The port number at the data receiver (DR), i.e.,
the destination port. A value of 0 indicates a port wildcard,
i.e., the destination port number is not known. Any other value
indicates the destination port number.
o DS port number: The port number at the data sender (DS), i.e., the
source port. A value of 0 indicates a port wildcard, i.e., the
source port number is not known. Any other value indicates the
source port number.
o data sender's IPv4 address: The source IP address of the data
sender. This field MUST be set to zero if no IP address is
provided, i.e., a complete wildcard is desired (see dest prefix
field above).
4.2.8. ICMP Types Object
The 'ICMP types' object contains additional information needed to
configure a NAT of firewall with rules to control ICMP traffic. The
object contains a number of values of the ICMP Type field for which a
filter action should be set up:
Type: NATFW_ICMP_TYPES (IANA-TBD)
Length: Variable = ((Number of Types carried + 1) + 3) DIV 4
Where DIV is an integer division.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Count | Type | Type | ........ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ................ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ........ | Type | (Padding) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 29: ICMP Types Object
The fields MUST be interpreted according to these rules:
count: 8 bit integer specifying the number of 'Type' entries in
the object.
type: 8 bit field specifying an ICMP Type value to which this rule
applies.
padding: Sufficient 0 bits to pad out the last word so that the
total size of object is an even multiple of words. Ignored on
reception.
4.3. Message Formats
This section defines the content of each NATFW NSLP message type.
The message types are defined in Section 4.1.
Basically, each message is constructed of NSLP header and one or more
NSLP objects. The order of objects is not defined, meaning that
objects may occur in any sequence. Objects are marked either with
mandatory (M) or optional (O). Where (M) implies that this
particular object MUST be included within the message and where (O)
implies that this particular object is OPTIONAL within the message.
Objects defined in this memo always carry the flag combination AB=00
in the NSLP object header. An error RESPONSE message of class
'Protocol error' (0x3) with response code 'Mandatory object missing'
(0x04) MUST be generated if a mandatory declared object is missing.
An error RESPONSE message of class 'Protocol error' (0x3) with
response code 'Illegal object present' (0x05) MUST be generated if an
object was present which must not be used in a message of this type.
An error RESPONSE message of class 'Protocol error' (0x3) with
response code 'Duplicate object present' (0x0A) MUST be generated if
an object appears more than once in a message.
Each section elaborates the required settings and parameters to be
set by the NSLP for the NTLP, for instance, how the message routing
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
information is set.
4.3.1. CREATE
The CREATE message is used to create NATFW NSLP signaling sessions
and to create policy rules. Furthermore, CREATE messages are used to
refresh NATFW NSLP signaling sessions and to delete them.
The CREATE message carries these objects:
o Signaling Session Lifetime object (M)
o Extended flow information object (M)
o Message sequence number object (M)
o Nonce object (M) if P flag set to 1 in the NSLP header, otherwise
(O)
o ICMP Types Object (O)
The message routing information in the NTLP MUST be set to DS as
source address and DR as destination address. All other parameters
MUST be set according the required policy rule. CREATE messages MUST
be transported by using the path-coupled MRM with direction set to
'downstream' (outbound).
4.3.2. EXTERNAL
The EXTERNAL message is used to a) reserve an external IP address/
port at NATs, b) to notify firewalls about NSIS capable DRs, or c) to
block incoming data traffic at inbound firewalls.
The EXTERNAL message carries these objects:
o Signaling Session Lifetime object (M)
o Message sequence number object (M)
o Extended flow information object (M)
o Data terminal information object (M)
o Nonce object (M) if P flag set to 1 in the NSLP header, otherwise
(O)
o ICMP Types Object (O)
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
The selected message routing method of the EXTERNAL message depends
on a number of considerations. Section 3.7.2 describes it
exhaustively how to select the correct method. EXTERNAL messages can
be transported via the path-coupled message routing method (PC-MRM)
or via the loose-end message routing method (LE-MRM). In the case of
PC-MRM, the source-address is set to DS' address and the destination
address is set to DR's address, the direction is set to inbound. In
the case of LE-MRM, the destination-address is set to DR's address or
to the signaling destination address. The source-address is set to
DS's address.
4.3.3. RESPONSE
RESPONSE messages are responses to CREATE and EXTERNAL messages.
RESPONSE messages MUST NOT be generated for any other message, such
as NOTIFY and RESPONSE.
The RESPONSE message for the class 'Success' (0x2) carries these
objects:
o Signaling Session Lifetime object (M)
o Message sequence number object (M)
o Information code object (M)
o External address object (O)
The RESPONSE message for other classes than 'Success' (0x2) carries
these objects:
o Message sequence number object (M)
o Information code object (M)
This message is routed towards the NI hop-by-hop, using existing NTLP
messaging associations. The MRM used for this message MUST be the
same as MRM used by the corresponding CREATE or EXTERNAL message.
4.3.4. NOTIFY
The NOTIFY messages is used to report asynchronous events happening
along the signaled path to other NATFW NSLP nodes.
The NOTIFY message carries this object:
o Information code object (M).
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
The NOTIFY message is routed towards the NI hop-by-hop using the
existing inbound node messaging association entry within the node's
Message Routing State table. The MRM used for this message MUST be
the same as MRM used by the corresponding CREATE or EXTERNAL message.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
5. Security Considerations
Security is of major concern particularly in case of firewall
traversal. This section provides security considerations for the
NAT/firewall traversal and is organized as follows.
In Section 5.1 we describe how the participating entities relate to
each other from a security point of view. This subsection also
motivates a particular authorization model.
Security threats that focus on NSIS in general are described in
[RFC4081] and they are applicable to this document as well.
Finally, we illustrate how the security requirements that were
created based on the security threats can be fulfilled by specific
security mechanisms. These aspects will be elaborated in
Section 5.2.
5.1. Authorization Framework
The NATFW NSLP is a protocol which may involve a number of NSIS nodes
and is, as such, not a two-party protocol. Figure 1 and Figure 2 of
[RFC4081] already depict the possible set of communication patterns.
In this section we will re-evaluate these communication patters with
respect to the NATFW NSLP protocol interaction.
The security solutions for providing authorization have a direct
impact on the treatment of different NSLPs. As it can be seen from
the QoS NSLP [I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp] and the corresponding Diameter
QoS work [I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos] accounting and charging seems
to play an important role for QoS reservations, whereas monetary
aspects might only indirectly effect authorization decisions for NAT
and firewall signaling. Hence, there are differences in the semantic
of authorization handling between QoS and NATFW signaling. A NATFW
aware node will most likely want to authorize the entity (e.g., user
or machine) requesting the establishment of pinholes or NAT bindings.
The outcome of the authorization decision is either allowed or
disallowed whereas a QoS authorization decision might indicate that a
different set of QoS parameters is authorization (see
[I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos] as an example).
5.1.1. Peer-to-Peer Relationship
Starting with the simplest scenario, it is assumed that neighboring
nodes are able to authenticate each other and to establish keying
material to protect the signaling message communication. The nodes
will have to authorize each other, additionally to the
authentication. We use the term 'Security Context' as a placeholder
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
for referring to the entire security procedure, the necessary
infrastructure that needs to be in place in order for this to work
(e.g., key management) and the established security related state.
The required long-term key (symmetric or asymmetric keys) used for
authentication are either made available using an out-of-band
mechanism between the two NSIS NATFW nodes or they are dynamically
established using mechanisms not further specified in this document.
Note that the deployment environment will most likely have an impact
on the choice of credentials being used. The choice of these
credentials used is also outside the scope of this document.
+------------------------+ +-------------------------+
|Network A | | Network B|
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| +-///-+ Middle- +---///////----+ Middle- +-///-+ |
| | | box 1 | Security | box 2 | | |
| | +---------+ Context +---------+ | |
| | Security | | Security | |
| | Context | | Context | |
| | | | | |
| +--+---+ | | +--+---+ |
| | Host | | | | Host | |
| | A | | | | B | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
+------------------------+ +-------------------------+
Figure 30: Peer-to-Peer Relationship
Figure 30 shows a possible relationship between participating NSIS
aware nodes. Host A might be, for example, a host in an enterprise
network that has keying material established (e.g., a shared secret)
with the company's firewall (Middlebox 1). The network administrator
of Network A (company network) has created access control lists for
Host A (or whatever identifiers a particular company wants to use).
Exactly the same procedure might also be used between Host B and
Middlebox 2 in Network B. For the communication between Middlebox 1
and Middlebox 2 a security context is also assumed in order to allow
authentication, authorization and signaling message protection to be
successful.
5.1.2. Intra-Domain Relationship
In larger corporations, for example, a middlebox is used to protect
individual departments. In many cases, the entire enterprise is
controlled by a single (or a small number of) security department,
which gives instructions to the department administrators. In such a
scenario, the previously discussed peer-to-peer relationship might be
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
prevalent. Sometimes it might be necessary to preserve
authentication and authorization information within the network. As
a possible solution, a centralized approach could be used, whereby an
interaction between the individual middleboxes and a central entity
(for example a policy decision point - PDP) takes place. As an
alternative, individual middleboxes exchange the authorization
decision with another middlebox within the same trust domain.
Individual middleboxes within an administrative domain may exploit
their relationship instead of requesting authentication and
authorization of the signaling initiator again and again. Figure 31
illustrates a network structure which uses a centralized entity.
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Network A |
| +---------+ +---------+
| +----///--------+ Middle- +------///------++ Middle- +---
| | Security | box 2 | Security | box 2 |
| | Context +----+----+ Context +----+----+
| +----+----+ | | |
| | Middle- +--------+ +---------+ | |
| | box 1 | | | | |
| +----+----+ | | | |
| | Security | +----+-----+ | |
| | Context | | Policy | | |
| +--+---+ +-----------+ Decision +----------+ |
| | Host | | Point | |
| | A | +----------+ |
| +------+ |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 31: Intra-domain Relationship
The interaction between individual middleboxes and a policy decision
point (or AAA server) is outside the scope of this document.
5.1.3. End-to-Middle Relationship
The peer-to-peer relationship between neighboring NSIS NATFW NSLP
nodes might not always be sufficient. Network B might require
additional authorization of the signaling message initiator (in
addition to the authorization of the neighboring node). If
authentication and authorization information is not attached to the
initial signaling message then the signaling message arriving at
Middlebox 2 would result in an error message being created, which
indicates the additional authorization requirement. In many cases
the signaling message initiator might already be aware of the
additionally required authorization before the signaling message
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
exchange is executed.
Figure 32 shows this scenario.
+--------------------+ +---------------------+
| Network A | |Network B |
| | Security | |
| +---------+ Context +---------+ |
| +-///-+ Middle- +---///////----+ Middle- +-///-+ |
| | | box 1 | +-------+ box 2 | | |
| | +---------+ | +---------+ | |
| |Security | | | Security | |
| |Context | | | Context |
| | | | | | |
| +--+---+ | | | +--+---+ |
| | Host +----///----+------+ | | Host | |
| | A | | Security | | B | |
| +------+ | Context | +------+ |
+--------------------+ +---------------------+
Figure 32: End-to-Middle Relationship
5.2. Security Framework for the NAT/Firewall NSLP
The following list of security requirements has been created to
ensure proper secure operation of the NATFW NSLP.
5.2.1. Security Protection between neighboring NATFW NSLP Nodes
Based on the analyzed threats it is RECOMMENDED to provide, between
neighboring NATFW NSLP nodes, the following mechanism:
o data origin authentication
o replay protection
o integrity protection and
o optionally confidentiality protection
It is RECOMMENDED to use the authentication and key exchange security
mechanisms provided in [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp] between neighboring nodes
when sending NATFW signaling messages. The proposed security
mechanisms of GIST provide support for authentication and key
exchange in addition to denial of service protection. Depending on
the chosen security protocol, support for multiple authentication
protocols might be provided. If security between neighboring nodes
is desired than the usage of C-MODE for the delivery of data packets
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
and the usage of D-MODE only to discover the next NATFW NSLP aware
node along the path is highly RECOMMENDED. Almost all security
threats at the NATFW NSLP layer can be prevented by using a mutually
authenticated Transport Layer secured connection and by relying on
authorization by the neighboring NATFW NSLP entities.
The NATFW NSLP relies on an established security association between
neighboring peers to prevent unauthorized nodes to modify or delete
installed state. Between non-neighboring nodes the session ID (SID)
carried in the NTLP is used to show ownership of a NATFW NSLP
signaling session. The session ID MUST be generated in a random way
and thereby prevent an off-path adversary to mount targeted attacks.
Hence, an adversary would have to learn the randomly generated
session ID to perform an attack. In a mobility environment a former
on-path node that is now off-path can perform an attack. Messages
for a particular NATFW NSLP signaling session are handled by the NTLP
to the NATFW NSLP for further processing. Messages carrying a
different session ID not associated with any NATFW NSLP are subject
to the regular processing for new NATFW NSLP signaling sessions.
5.2.2. Security Protection between non-neighboring NATFW NSLP Nodes
Based on the security threats and the listed requirements it was
noted that some threats also demand authentication and authorization
of a NATFW signaling entity (including the initiator) towards a non-
neighboring node. This mechanism mainly demands entity
authentication. The most important information exchanged at the
NATFW NSLP is information related to the establishment for firewall
pinholes and NAT bindings. This information can, however, not be
protected over multiple NSIS NATFW NSLP hops since this information
might change depending on the capability of each individual NATFW
NSLP node.
Some scenarios might also benefit from the usage of authorization
tokens. Their purpose is to associate two different signaling
protocols (e.g., SIP and NSIS) and their authorization decision.
These tokens are obtained by non-NSIS protocols, such as SIP or as
part of network access authentication. When a NAT or firewall along
the path receives the token it might be verified locally or passed to
the AAA infrastructure. Examples of authorization tokens can be
found in RFC 3520 [RFC3520] and RFC 3521 [RFC3521]. Figure 33 shows
an example of this protocol interaction.
An authorization token is provided by the SIP proxy, which acts as
the assertion generating entity and gets delivered to the end host
with proper authentication and authorization. When the NATFW
signaling message is transmitted towards the network, the
authorization token is attached to the signaling messages to refer to
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
the previous authorization decision. The assertion verifying entity
needs to process the token or it might be necessary to interact with
the assertion granting entity using HTTP (or other protocols). As a
result of a successfully authorization by a NATFW NSLP node, the
requested action is executed and later a RESPONSE message is
generated.
+----------------+ Trust Relationship +----------------+
| +------------+ |<.......................>| +------------+ |
| | Protocol | | | | Assertion | |
| | requesting | | HTTP, SIP Request | | Granting | |
| | authz | |------------------------>| | Entity | |
| | assertions | |<------------------------| +------------+ |
| +------------+ | Artifact/Assertion | Entity Cecil |
| ^ | +----------------+
| | | ^ ^|
| | | . || HTTP,
| | | Trust . || other
| API Access | Relationship. || protocols
| | | . ||
| | | . ||
| | | v |v
| v | +----------------+
| +------------+ | | +------------+ |
| | Protocol | | NSIS NATFW CREATE + | | Assertion | |
| | using authz| | Assertion/Artifact | | Verifying | |
| | assertion | | ----------------------- | | Entity | |
| +------------+ | | +------------+ |
| Entity Alice | <---------------------- | Entity Bob |
+----------------+ RESPONSE +----------------+
Figure 33: Authorization Token Usage
Threats against the usage of authorization tokens have been mentioned
in [RFC4081]. Hence, it is required to provide confidentiality
protection to avoid allowing an eavesdropper to learn the token and
to use it in another NATFW NSLP signaling session (replay attack).
The token itself also needs to be protected against tempering.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
6. IAB Considerations on UNSAF
UNilateral Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) is described in [RFC3424] as a
process at originating endpoints that attempt to determine or fix the
address (and port) by which they are known to another endpoint.
UNSAF proposals, such as STUN [RFC5389] are considered as a general
class of workarounds for NAT traversal and as solutions for scenarios
with no middlebox communication.
This memo specifies a path-coupled middlebox communication protocol,
i.e., the NSIS NATFW NSLP. NSIS in general and the NATFW NSLP are
not intended as a short-term workaround, but more as a long-term
solution for middlebox communication. In NSIS, endpoints are
involved in allocating, maintaining, and deleting addresses and ports
at the middlebox. However, the full control of addresses and ports
at the middlebox is at the NATFW NSLP daemon located at the
respective NAT.
Therefore, this document addresses the UNSAF considerations in
[RFC3424] by proposing a long-term alternative solution.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
7. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the
NATFW NSLP, in accordance with BCP 26 RFC 5226 [RFC5226].
The NATFW NSLP requires IANA to create a number of new registries.
These registries may require further coordination with the registries
of the NTLP [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp] and the QoS NSLP
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp].
NATFW NSLP Message Type Registry
The NATFW NSLP Message Type is a 8 bit value. The allocation of
values for new message types requires standards action. Updates and
deletion of values from the registry is not possible. This
specification defines four NATFW NSLP message types, which form the
initial contents of this registry. IANA is requested to add these
four NATFW NSLP Message Types: CREATE, EXT, RESPONSE, and NOTIFY.
NATFW NSLP Header Flag Registry
NATFW NSLP messages have a messages-specific 8 bit flags/reserved
field in their header. The registration of flags is subject to IANA
registration. The allocation of values for flag types requires
standards action. Updates and deletion of values from the registry
is not possible. This specification defines only one flag, the P
flag in Figure 20.
NSLP Object Type Registry
[Delete this part if already done by another NSLP:
A new registry is to be created for NSLP Message Objects. This is a
12-bit field (giving values from 0 to 4095). This registry is shared
between a number of NSLPs. Allocation policies are as follows:
0-1023: Standards Action
1024-1999: Specification Required
2000-2047: Private/Experimental Use
2048-4095: Reserved
When a new object is defined, the extensibility bits (A/B) must also
be defined.]
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
This document defines 8 objects for the NATFW NSLP: NATFW_LT,
NATFW_EXTERNAL-IP, NATFW_EFI, NATFW_INFO, NATFW_NONCE, NATFW_MSN,
NATFW_DTINFO, NATFW_ICMP_TYPES. IANA is request to assigned values
for them from NSLP Object Type registry and to replace the
corresponding IANA-TBD tags with the numeric values.
NSLP Response Code Registry
In addition it defines a number of Response Codes for the NATFW NSLP.
These can be found in Section 4.2.4 and are to be assigned values
from NSLP Response Code registry. The allocation of values for
Response Codes Codes requires standards action. IANA is request to
assigned values for them from NSLP Response Code registry.
GIST NSLPID
This specification defines an NSLP for use with GIST and thus
requires an assigned NSLP identifier. IANA is requested to add a new
value to the NSLP Identifiers (NSLPID) registry defined in
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp] for the NATFW NSLP.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
8. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following individuals for their
contributions to this document at different stages:
o Marcus Brunner and Henning Schulzrinne for their work on IETF
drafts which lead us to start with this document;
o Miquel Martin for his large contribution on the initial version of
this document and one of the first prototype implemenations;
o Srinath Thiruvengadam and Ali Fessi work for their work on the
NAT/firewall threats draft;
o Henning Peters for his comments and suggestions;
o and the NSIS working group.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]
Schulzrinne, H. and R. Hancock, "GIST: General Internet
Signalling Transport", draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-17 (work in
progress), October 2008.
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
August 1996.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4080] Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J., and S. Van den
Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework",
RFC 4080, June 2005.
[RFC3726] Brunner, M., "Requirements for Signaling Protocols",
RFC 3726, April 2004.
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp]
Manner, J., Karagiannis, G., and A. McDonald, "NSLP for
Quality-of-Service Signaling", draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-16
(work in progress), February 2008.
[RFC3303] Srisuresh, P., Kuthan, J., Rosenberg, J., Molitor, A., and
A. Rayhan, "Middlebox communication architecture and
framework", RFC 3303, August 2002.
[RFC4081] Tschofenig, H. and D. Kroeselberg, "Security Threats for
Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS)", RFC 4081, June 2005.
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
RFC 2663, August 1999.
[RFC3234] Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes: Taxonomy and
Issues", RFC 3234, February 2002.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC3424] Daigle, L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address
Translation", RFC 3424, November 2002.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008.
[RFC3198] Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J., Scherling,
M., Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson, M., Perry,
J., and S. Waldbusser, "Terminology for Policy-Based
Management", RFC 3198, November 2001.
[RFC3520] Hamer, L-N., Gage, B., Kosinski, B., and H. Shieh,
"Session Authorization Policy Element", RFC 3520,
April 2003.
[RFC3521] Hamer, L-N., Gage, B., and H. Shieh, "Framework for
Session Set-up with Media Authorization", RFC 3521,
April 2003.
[I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos]
Sun, D., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., Tsou, T., Doria, A.,
and G. Zorn, "Diameter Quality of Service Application",
draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-06 (work in progress),
July 2008.
[rsvp-firewall]
Roedig, U., Goertz, M., Karten, M., and R. Steinmetz,
"RSVP as firewall Signalling Protocol", Proceedings of the
6th IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications,
Hammamet, Tunisia pp. 57 to 62, IEEE Computer Society
Press, July 2001.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Appendix A. Selecting Signaling Destination Addresses for EXTERNAL
As with all other message types, EXTERNAL messages need a reachable
IP address of the data sender on the GIST level. For the path-
coupled MRM the source-address of GIST is the reachable IP address
(i.e., the real IP address of the data sender, or a wildcard). While
this is straight forward, it is not necessarily so for the loose-end
MRM. Many applications do not provide the IP address of the
communication counterpart, i.e., either the data sender or both a
data sender and receiver. For the EXTERNAL messages, the case of
data sender is of interest only. The rest of this section gives
informational guidance about determining a good destination-address
of the LE-MRM in GIST for EXTERNAL messages.
This signaling destination address (SDA, the destination-address in
GIST) can be the data sender, but for applications which do not
provide an address upfront, the destination address has to be chosen
independently, as it is unknown at the time when the NATFW NSLP
signaling has to start. Choosing the 'correct' destination IP
address may be difficult and it is possible that there is no 'right
answer' for all applications relying on the NATFW NSLP.
Whenever possible it is RECOMMENDED to chose the data sender's IP
address as SDA. It is necessary to differentiate between the
received IP addresses on the data sender. Some application level
signaling protocols (e.g., SIP) have the ability to transfer multiple
contact IP addresses of the data sender. For instance, private IP
address, public IP address at NAT, and public IP address at a relay.
It is RECOMMENDED to use all non-private IP addresses as SDAs.
A different SDA must be chosen, if the IP address of the data sender
is unknown. This can have multiple reasons: The application level
signaling protocol cannot determine any data sender IP address at
this point of time or the data receiver is server behind a NAT, i.e.,
accepting inbound packets from any host. In this case, the NATFW
NSLP can be instructed to use the public IP address of an application
server or any other node. Choosing the SDA in this case is out of
the scope of the NATFW NSLP and depends on the application's choice.
The local network can provide a network-SDA, i.e., a SDA which is
only meaningful to the local network. This will ensure that GIST
packets with destination-address set to this network-SDA are going to
be routed to a edge-NAT or edge-firewall.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Appendix B. Applicability Statement on Data Receivers behind Firewalls
Section 3.7.2 describes how data receivers behind middleboxes can
instruct inbound firewalls/NATs to forward NATFW NSLP signaling
towards them. Finding an inbound edge-NAT in address environment
with NAT'ed addresses is quite easy. It is only required to find
some edge-NAT, as the data traffic will be route-pinned to the NAT.
Locating the appropriate edge-firewall with the PC-MRM, sent inbound
is difficult. For cases with a single, symmetric route from the
Internet to the data receiver, it is quite easy; simply follow the
default route in the inbound direction.
+------+ Data Flow
+-------| EFW1 +----------+ <===========
| +------+ ,--+--.
+--+--+ / \
NI+-----| FW1 | (Internet )----NR+/NI/DS
NR +--+--+ \ /
| +------+ `--+--'
+-------| EFW2 +----------+
+------+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
Signaling Flow
Figure 34: Data receiver behind multiple, parallel located firewalls
When a data receiver, and thus NR, is located in a network site that
is multihomed with several independently firewalled connections to
the public Internet (as shown in Figure 34), the specific firewall
through which the data traffic will be routed has to be ascertained.
NATFW NSLP signaling messages sent from the NI+/NR during the
EXTERNAL message exchange towards the NR+ must be routed by the NTLP
to the edge-firewall that will be passed by the data traffic as well.
The NTLP would need to be aware about the routing within the Internet
to determine the path between DS and DR. Out of this, the NTLP could
determine which of the edge-firewalls, either EFW1 or EFW2, must be
selected to forward the NATFW NSLP signaling. Signaling to the wrong
edge-firewall, as shown in Figure 34, would install the NATFW NSLP
policy rules at the wrong device. This causes either a blocked data
flow (when the policy rule is 'allow') or an ongoing attack (when the
policy rule is 'deny'). Requiring the NTLP to know all about the
routing within the Internet is definitely a tough challenge and
usually not possible. In such described case, the NTLP must
basically give up and return an error to the NSLP level, indicating
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
that the next hop discovery is not possible.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Appendix C. Firewall and NAT Resources
This section gives some examples on how NATFW NSLP policy rules could
be mapped to real firewall or NAT resources. The firewall rules and
NAT bindings are described in a natural way, i.e., in a way one will
find it in common implementations.
C.1. Wildcarding of Policy Rules
The policy rule/MRI to be installed can be wildcarded to some degree.
Wildcarding applies to IP address, transport layer port numbers, and
the IP payload (or next header in IPv6). Processing of wildcarding
splits into the NTLP and the NATFW NSLP layer. The processing at the
NTLP layer is independent of the NSLP layer processing and per layer
constraints apply. For wildcarding in the NTLP see Section 5.8 of
[I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp].
Wildcarding at the NATFW NSLP level is always a node local policy
decision. A signaling message carrying a wildcarded MRI (and thus
policy rule) arriving at an NSLP node can be rejected if the local
policy does not allow the request. For instance, a MRI with IP
addresses set (not wildcarded), transport protocol TCP, and TCP port
numbers completely wildcarded. Now the local policy allows only
requests for TCP with all ports set and not wildcarded. The request
is going to be rejected.
C.2. Mapping to Firewall Rules
This section describes how a NSLP policy rule signaled with a CREATE
message is mapped to a firewall rule. The MRI is set as follows:
o network-layer-version=IPv4
o source-address=192.0.2.100, prefix-length=32
o destination-address=192.0.50.5, prefix-length=32
o IP-protocol=UDP
o L4-source-port=34543, L4-destination-port=23198
The NATFW_EFI object is set to action=allow and sub_ports=0.
The resulting policy rule (firewall rule) to be installed might look
like: allow udp from 192.0.2.100 port=34543 to 192.0.50.5 port=23198
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
C.3. Mapping to NAT Bindings
This section describes how a NSLP policy rule signaled with a
EXTERNAL message is mapped to a NAT binding. It is assumed that the
EXTERNAL message is sent by a NI+ being located behind a NAT and does
contain a NATFW_DTINFO object. The MRI is set following using the
signaling destination address, since the IP address of the real data
sender is not known:
o network-layer-version=IPv4
o source-address= 192.168.5.100
o destination-address=SDA
o IP-protocol=UDP
The NATFW_EFI object is set to action=allow and sub_ports=0. The
NATFW_DTINFO object contains these parameters:
o P=1
o dest prefix=0
o protocol=UDP
o dst port number = 20230, src port number=0
o src IP=0.0.0.0
The edge-NAT allocates the external IP 192.0.2.79 and port 45000.
The resulting policy rule (NAT binding) to be installed could look
like: translate udp from any to 192.0.2.79 port=45000 to
192.168.5.100 port=20230
C.4. NSLP Handling of Twice-NAT
The dynamic configuration of twice-NATs requires application level
support, as stated in Section 2.5. The NATFW NSLP cannot be used for
configuring twice-NATs if application level support is needed.
Assuming application level support performing the configuration of
the twice-NAT and the NATFW NSLP being installed at this devices, the
NATFW NSLP must be able to traverse it. The NSLP is probably able to
traverse the twice-NAT, as any other data traffic, but the flow
information stored in the NTLP's MRI will be invalidated through the
translation of source and destination address. The NATFW NSLP
implementation on the twice-NAT MUST intercept NATFW NSLP and NTLP
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
signaling messages as any other NATFW NSLP node does. For the given
signaling flow, the NATFW NSLP node MUST look up the corresponding IP
address translation and modify the NTLP/NSLP signaling accordingly.
The modification results in an updated MRI with respect to the source
and destination IP addresses.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Appendix D. Protocols Numbers for Testing
NOTE for the RFC editor: This section MUST be removed before
publication.
This section defines temporarily used values of the NATFW NSLP for
testing the different implementations.
Values for the NATFW NSLP message types:
o CREATE: 0x01
o EXTERNAL: 0x02
o RESPONSE: 0x03
o NOTIFY: 0x04
Values for the NSLP object types
o NATFW_LT: 0x00F1
o NATFW_EXTERNAL-IP: 0x00F2
o NATFW_EFI: 0x00F3
o NATFW_INFO: 0x00F4
o NATFW_NONCE: 0x00F5
o NATFW_MSN: 0x00F6
o NATFW_DTINFO: 0x00F7
o NATFW_ICMP_TYPES: 0x00F9
1345
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Authors' Addresses
Martin Stiemerling
NEC Europe Ltd. and University of Goettingen
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg 69115
Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 6221 4342 113
Email: stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu
Hannes Tschofenig
Nokia Siemens Networks
Linnoitustie 6
Espoo 02600
Finland
Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com
URI: http://www.tschofenig.com
Cedric Aoun
Paris
France
Email: cedric@caoun.net
Elwyn Davies
Folly Consulting
Soham
UK
Phone: +44 7889 488 335
Email: elwynd@dial.pipex.com
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft NAT/FW NSIS NSLP November 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Stiemerling, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 89]