One document matched: draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-01.txt
Network Working Group Magnus Westerlund
INTERNET-DRAFT Ericsson
Category: Standards Track Thomas Zeng
Expires: August 2004 PacketVideo Network Solutions
Feb 16, 2004
How to Enable Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) traverse Network
Address Translators (NAT) and interact with Firewalls.
<draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-02.txt>
Status of this memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 cite them other than as "work in progress".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/lid-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This document is an individual submission to the IETF. Comments
should be directed to the authors.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes six different types of NAT traversal
techniques that can be used by RTSP. For each technique a description
on how it shall be used, what security implications it has and other
deployment considerations are given. Further a description on how
RTSP relates to firewalls is given.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Definitions.........................................................3
1.1. Glossary.......................................................3
1.2. Terminology....................................................3
2. Changes.............................................................3
3. Introduction........................................................4
3.1. NATs...........................................................4
3.2. Firewalls......................................................5
4. Requirements........................................................6
5. Detecting the loss of NAT mappings..................................6
6. NAT Traversal Techniques............................................7
6.1. STUN...........................................................8
6.1.1. Introduction..............................................8
6.1.2. Using STUN to traverse NAT without server modifications...8
6.1.3. Embedding STUN in RTSP...................................10
6.1.4. Discussion On Co-located STUN Server.....................11
6.1.5. ALG considerations.......................................12
6.1.6. Deployment Considerations................................12
6.1.7. Security Considerations..................................13
6.2. ICE...........................................................14
6.2.1. Introduction.............................................14
6.2.2. Using ICE in RTSP........................................15
156.2.3. Implementation burden of ICE...........................15
6.2.4. Deployment Considerations................................15
6.2.5. Security Considerations..................................16
6.3. Symmetric RTP.................................................16
6.3.1. Introduction.............................................16
166.3.2. Using Symmetric RTP in RTSP............................17
6.3.3. Open Issues..............................................17
6.3.4. Deployment Considerations................................17
6.3.5. Security Consideration...................................17
6.4. Application Level Gateways....................................18
6.4.1. Introduction.............................................18
6.4.2. Guidelines On Writing ALGs for RTSP......................19
6.4.3. Deployment Considerations................................20
6.4.4. Security Considerations..................................20
6.5. TCP Tunneling.................................................20
6.5.1. Introduction.............................................20
6.5.2. Usage of TCP tunneling in RTSP...........................21
6.5.3. Deployment Considerations................................21
6.5.4. Security Considerations..................................21
6.6. TURN (Traversal Using Relay NAT)..............................21
6.6.1. Introduction.............................................21
6.6.2. Usage of TURN with RTSP..................................22
6.6.3. Deployment Considerations................................23
6.6.4. Security Considerations..................................23
7. Firewalls..........................................................24
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
8. Open Issues........................................................25
9. Security Consideration.............................................25
10. IANA Consideration................................................26
11. Acknowledgments...................................................26
12. Author's Addresses................................................26
13. References........................................................27
13.1. Normative references.........................................27
13.2. Informative References.......................................27
14. IPR Notice........................................................28
15. Copyright Notice..................................................29
1. Definitions
1.1. Glossary
ALG û Application Level Gateway, an entity that can be embedded in
a NAT to perform the application layer functions required
for a particular protocol to traverse the NAT [6]
ICE - Interactive Connectivity Establishment, see [9].
DNS û Domain Name Service
MID - Media Identifier from Grouping of media lines in SDP, see
[10].
NAT - Network Address Translator, see [12].
NAT-PT - Network Address Translator Protocol Translator, see [13]
RTP - Real-time Transport Protocol, see [5].
RTSP - Real-Time Streaming Protocol, see [1] and [7].
SDP - Session Description Protocol, see [2].
SSRC - Synchronization source in RTP, see [5].
TBD - To Be Decided
1.2. Terminology
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 RFC 2119 [4].
2. Changes
The following changes has been done since draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-
00.txt:
- Added requirements section, per discussions during IETF 58.
- Delegated the discussion on using ICE for RTSP to a separate
draft.
- Removed all the solutions proposal in regards protocol changing
mechanism.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
3. Introduction
Today there is a proliferative deployment of different flavors of
Network Address Translator (NAT) boxes that in practice follow no
open standards [12][18]. NATs cause discontinuity in address realms
[18], therefore a protocol, such as RTSP, needs to try to make sure
that it can deal with such discontinuities caused by NATs. The
problem with RTSP is that, being a media control protocol that
manages one or more media streams, it carries information about
network addresses and ports inside itself. Because of this, even if
RTSP itself, when carried over TCP for example, is not blocked by
NATs, its media streams are often blocked by NATs when RTSP based
streaming servers are deployed as is and without special provisions
to support NAT traversal.
Like NATs, firewalls (FWs) are also middle boxes that need to be
considered. They are deployed to prevent non-desired
traffic/protocols to be able to get in or out of the protected
network. RTSP is designed such that a firewall can be configured to
let RTSP controlled media streams to go through with minimal
implementation problems. However there is a need for more detailed
information on how FWs should be configured to work with RTSP.
This document describes the usage of known NAT traversal mechanisms
that can be used with RTSP. Following the guidelines spelled out in
[18], we describe the required RTSP protocol extensions for each
method, transition strategies, and we also discuss each methodÆs
security concerns.
This document is not based on RFC 2326 [1]. It is instead based and
dependent on the updated RTSP specification [7], which is under
development in IETF MMUSIC WG. The updated specification is a much-
needed attempt to correct a number of shortcomings of RFC 2326. One
important change is that the specification is split into several
parts. So far only the updated core specification of RTSP is
available in [7]. This document is one extension document to this
core spec to document a special functionality that extends the RTSP
protocol. This document is intended to be updated to stay consistent
with the core protocol.
3.1. NATs
Today there exist a number of different NAT types and usage areas.
The different NAT types are cited here from STUN [6]:
Full Cone: A full cone NAT is one where all requests from the same
internal IP address and port are mapped to the same external IP
address and port. Furthermore, any external host can send a packet to
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
the internal host, by sending a packet to the mapped external
address.
Restricted Cone: A restricted cone NAT is one where all requests from
the same internal IP address and port are mapped to the same external
IP address and port. Unlike a full cone NAT, an external host (with
IP address X) can send a packet to the internal host only if the
internal host had previously sent a packet to IP address X.
Port Restricted Cone: A port restricted cone NAT is like a restricted
cone NAT, but the restriction includes port numbers. Specifically, an
external host can send a packet, with source IP address X and source
port P, to the internal host only if the internal host had previously
sent a packet to IP address X and port P.
Symmetric: A symmetric NAT is one where all requests from the same
internal IP address and port, to a specific destination IP address
and port, are mapped to the same external IP address and port. If the
same host sends a packet with the same source address and port, but
to a different destination, a different mapping is used. Furthermore,
only the external host that receives a packet can send a UDP packet
back to the internal host.
NATs are used on both small and large scale. The normal small-scale
user is home user that has a NAT to allow multiple computers share
the single IP address given by their Internet Service Provider (ISP).
The large scale users are the ISP's themselves that give there users
private addresses. This is done both for control and for lack of IP
addresses.
Native Address Translation and Protocol Translation (NAT-PT) [13] is
a mechanism used for IPv4 to IPv6 transition. This device is used to
allow devices only having connectivity using one of the IP versions
to communicate with the other address domain. If the other address
domain is addressable through the use of domain names, then a DNS ALG
assigns temporary IP addresses in the requestor's domain. The NAT-PT
device translates this temporary address to the receivers true IP
address and at the same time modify all necessary fields to be
correct in the receiver's address domain.
3.2. Firewalls
A firewall (FW) is a security gateway that enforces certain access
control policies between two network administrative domains: a
private domain (intranet) and a pulic domain (public internet). Many
organizations use firewalls to prevent privacy intrusions and
malicious attacks to corporate computing resources in the private
intranet [19].
A comparison between NAT and FW are given below:
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
1. FW must be a gateway between two network administrative domains,
while NAT does not have to sit between two domains. In fact, in
many corporations there are many NAT boxes within the intranet, in
which case the NAT boxes sit between subnets.
2. NAT does not in itself provide security, although some access
control policies can be implemented using address translation
schemes.
3. NAT and FWs are similar in that they can both be configured to
allow multiple network hosts to share a single public IP address.
In other words, a host behind a NAT or FW can have a private IP
address and a public one, so for NAT and FW there is the issue of
address mapping which is important in order for RTSP protocol to
work properly when there are NATs and FWs between the RTSP server
and its clients.
In the rest of this memo we use the phrase ôNAT traversalö
interchangeably with ôNAT/FW traversalö and ôNAT/Firewall traversalö.
4. Requirements
This section considers the set of requirements when designing or
evaluating RTSP NAT solutions.
RTSP is a client/server protocol, and as such the targeted
applications in general deploy RTSP servers in the public address
realm. However, there are use cases where the reverse is true: RTSP
clients are connecting from public address realm to RTSP servers
behind home NATs. This is the case for instance when home
surveillance cameras running as RTSP servers intend to stream video
to cell phone users in the public address realm through a home NAT.
The first priority should be to solve the RTSP NAT traversal problem
for RTSP servers deployed in the open.
The list of feature requirements for RTSP NAT solutions are given
below:
1. MUST work for all flavors of NATs, including symmetric NATs
2. MUST work for firewalls (subject to pertinent firewall
administrative policies), including those with ALGs
3. SHOULD have minimal impact on clients in the open and not dual-
hosted
o For instance, no extra delay from RTSP connection till
arrival of media
4. SHOULD be simple to use/implement/administer that people
actually turn them on
o Otherwise people will resort to TCP tunneling through NATs
o Address discovery for NAT traversal should take place
behind the scene, if possible
5. SHOULD authenticate dual-hosted client transport handler to
prevent DDOS attacks
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
5. Detecting the loss of NAT mappings
Several of the NAT traversal techniques in the next chapter use the
fact that the NAT UDP mapping's external address and port can be
discovered. This information is then utilized to direct the traffic
intended for the local side's address to the external instead.
However any such information is only valid while the mapping is
intact. As the IAB's UNSAF document [18] points out, the mapping can
either timeout or change its properties. It is therefore important
for the NAT traversal solutions to handle the loss or change of NAT
mappings, according to UNSAF.
First, it is important to ensure that there exists the possibility to
send keep-alive traffic to minimize the probability of timeout. The
difficulty is that the timeout timer can have varying length between
different NATs. That is the reason why that UNSAF recommends usage of
STUN to determine this timeout.
Secondly, it is possible to detect and recover from the situation
where the mapping has been changed or removed. The possibility to
detect a lost mapping is based on the fact that no traffic will
arrive. Below we will give some recommendation on how to detect loss
of NAT mappings when using RTP/RTCP under RTSP control.
For RTP session there is normally a need to have both RTP and RTCP
functioning. The loss of a RTP mapping can only be detected when
expected traffic does not arrive. If no data arrives after having
issued a PLAY request and received the 200 response, one can normally
expect to receive RTP packets within a few seconds. However, for a
receiver to be certain to detect the case where no RTP traffic was
delivered due to NAT trouble, one should monitor the RTCP Sender
reports. The sender report carries a field telling how many packets
the server has sent. If that has increased and no RTP packets has
arrived for a few seconds it is very likely the RTP mapping has been
removed.
The loss of mapping carrying RTCP is simpler to detect. As RTCP is
normally sent periodically in each direction, even during the RTSP
ready state, if RTCP packets are missing for several RTCP intervals,
the mapping is likely to be lost. Note that if no RTCP packets are
received by the RTSP server for a while, the RTSP server has the
option to delete the corresponding SSRC and RTSP session ID, which
means either the client could not get through a middle box NAT/FW, or
that the client is mal-functioning.
6. NAT Traversal Techniques
There exist a number of NAT traversal techniques that can be used to
allow RTSP to traverse NATs. However they have different features,
they are applicable to different topologies; and the cost is also
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
different. They also differ in their security considerations. In the
following sections, each technique is outlined in details in terms of
its advantages and disadvantages.
Not all of the techniques are yet described in the full details
needed to actually use this document as a specification for how to
use them. These sections are included to present comparison amongst
the different methods in order for one to identify the most suitable
method for a particular RTSP deployment scenario. There are methods
that use protocols in early stage of standardization, such as TURN
and ICE.
6.1. STUN
6.1.1. Introduction
STUN û ôSimple Traversal of UDP Through Network Address Translatorsö
[6] is a standardized protocol developed by the MIDCOM WG that allows
a client to use secure means to discover the presence of a NAT
between himself and the STUN server and the type of that NAT. The
client then uses the STUN server to discover the address bindings
assigned by the NAT. The protocol also allows discovery of the
mappings timeout period and can be used in any keep-alive mechanism.
STUN is a client-server protocol. STUN client sends a request to a
STUN server and the server returns a response. There are two types of
STUN requests û Binding Requests, sent over UDP, and Shared Secret
Requests, sent over TLS over TCP. We note here that for RTSP clients
running on embedded devices, it may not be practical to require TLS
be implemented on the embedded device (such as a cell phone).
Therefore in the next section we propose to adapt RFC 3489 ([6]) so
as to let RTSP use a subset of STUN packets/features for NAT
traversal, but without requiring full implementation of STUN in an
RTSP server or RTSP client. We note that RFC 3489 has provisions for
STUN to be embedded in another application (see section 6 of [6]).
6.1.2. Using STUN to traverse NAT without server modifications
This section describes how a client can use STUN to traverse NATs to
RTSP servers without requiring server modifications. However this
method has limited applicability and requires the server to be
available in the external/public address realm in regards to the
client located behind a NAT(s).
Limitations:
- The server must be located in either a public address realm or the
next hop external address realm in regards to the client.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
- The client may only be located behind NATs that are of the full
cone, address restricted, or port restricted type. Clients behind
symmetric NATs cannot use this method.
Method:
A RTSP client using RTP transport over UDP can use STUN to traverse a
full cone NAT(s) in the following way:
1. Use STUN to discover the type of NAT, if any, and the timeout
period for any UDP mapping on the NAT. This is RECOMMENDED to be
performed in the background as soon as IP connectivity is
established. If this is performed prior to establishing a
streaming session the possible delays in the session establishment
will be reduced. If no NAT is detected, normal SETUP SHOULD be
used.
2. The RTSP client determines the number of UDP ports needed by
counting the number of needed media transport protocols sessions
in the multi-media presentation. This information is available in
the media description protocol, e.g. SDP. For example, each RTP
session will in general require two UDP ports, one for RTP, and
one for RTCP.
3. For each UDP port required, establish a mapping and discover the
public/external IP address and port number with the help of the
STUN server. If successful a mapping has been established:
clients local address/port <-> public address/port.
4. Perform the RTSP SETUP for each media. In the transport header the
following parameter SHOULD be included with the given values:
"dest_addr" with the public/external IP address and port pair for
both RTP and RTCP. To allow this to work servers MUST allow a
client to setup the RTP stream on any port, not only even ports.
The server SHOULD respond with a transport header containing an
"src_addr" parameter with the RTP and RTCP source IP address and
port of the media stream.
5. To keep the mappings alive, the client SHOULD periodically send
UDP traffic over all mappings needed for the session. STUN MAY be
used to determine the timeout period of the NAT(s) UDP mappings.
For the mapping carrying RTCP traffic the periodic RTCP traffic
may be enough. For mappings carrying RTP traffic and for mappings
carrying RTCP packets not frequent enough, keep alive messages
SHOULD be sent. As keep alive messages, empty IP/UDP messages
SHOULD be sent to the streaming servers discard port (port number
9).
If a UDP mapping is lost then the above discovery process is required
to be performed again. The media stream needs to be SETUP again to
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
change the transport parameters to the new ones. This will likely
cause a glitch in media playback.
To allow UDP packets to arrive from the server to a client behind a
restricted NAT, some UDP packets must first be sent to the server.
The client, before sending a RTSP PLAY request, must send an empty or
small UDP message, on each mapping, to the IP address given as the
servers source address. To create minimum problems for the server
these UDP packets SHOULD be sent to the server's discard port (port
number 9) and contain no or very little data. To ensure that at least
one UDP message passes the NAT, several messages are recommended to
be sent.
For a port restricted NAT the client must send messages to the exact
ports used by the server to send UDP packets before sending a RTSP
PLAY request. This makes it possible to use the above described
process with the following additional restrictions: For each port
mapping, UDP packets needs to be sent first to the servers source
address/port. To minimize potential effects on the server from these
messages the following type of messages MUST be sent. RTP: An empty
or less than 12 bytes large UDP message. RTCP: A correctly formed
RTCP message.
The above described adaptations for restricted NATs will not work
unless the server includes the "src_addr" "Transport" header
parameter.
6.1.3. Embedding STUN in RTSP
This section outlines the adaptation and embedding of STUN within
RTSP. This enables STUN to be used to traverse any type of NAT,
including symmetric NATs. Any protocol changes are beyond the scope
of this memo and is instead defined in TBD internet draft.
Limitations:
This NAT traversal solution (using STUN with RTSP) has limitations:
1. It does not work if both RTSP client and RTSP server are behind
separate NATs.
2. The RTSP server may, for security reasons, refuse to send media
streams to an IP different from the IP in the client RTSP
requests. Therefore, if the client is behind a NAT that has
multiple public addresses, and the clientÆs RTSP port and UDP
port are mapped to different IP addresses, RTSP SETUP will
fail.
Deviations from STUN as defined in RFC 3489
Specifically, we differ from RFC3489 in two aspects:
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
1. We allow RTSP applications to have the option to perform
"binding discovery" without authentication;
2. We require STUN server be co-located on RTSP serverÆs media
ports.
In order to allow binding discovery without authentication, the STUN
server embedded in RTSP application would ignore authentication tag,
and the STUN client embedded in RTSP application would use dummy
authentication tag, as well.
In order to use STUN to solve NAT traversal when RTSP client is
behind a symmetric NAT, STUN server must co-locate on RTSP serverÆs
media ports. This can be done, for instance, by embedding STUN server
in RTSP server.
In fact, if STUN server is indeed co-located with RTSP serverÆs media
port, then a RTSP client using RTP transport over UDP can use STUN to
traverse ALL types of NATs that have been defined in section 3.1. In
the case of symmetric NAT, the party inside the NAT must initiate UDP
traffic. The STUN Bind Request, being a UDP packet itself, can serve
as the traffic initiating packet. Subsequently, both the STUN Binding
Response packets and the RTP/RTCP packets can traverse the NAT,
regardless of whether the RTSP server or the RTSP client is behind
NAT.
Likewise, if a RTSP server is behind a NAT, then an embedded STUN
server must co-locate on the RTSP clientÆs RTCP port. In this case,
we assume that the client has some means to establish TCP connection
to the RTSP server behind NAT so as to exchange RTSP messages with
the RTSP server.
To minimize delay, we require that the RTSP server supporting this
option must inform its client the RTP and RTCP ports that the server
intend to send RTP and RTCP packets, respectively.
To minimize the keep-alive traffic for address mapping, we also
require that the RTSP end-point (server or client) sends and receives
RTCP packets from the same port.
6.1.4. Discussion On Co-located STUN Server
In order to use STUN to traverse symmetric NATs the STUN server needs
to be co-located with the streaming server media ports, i.e., the
port from which RTP packets will be sent. This creates a de-
multiplexing problem: we must be able to differentiate a STUN packet
from a media packet. This will be done based on heuristics. This
works fine between STUN and RTP or RTCP where the first byte has
always present difference, but this can't be guaranteed to work with
other media protocols.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
6.1.5. ALG considerations
If a NAT supports RTSP ALG (Application Level Gateway) and is not
aware of the STUN traversal option, service failure may happen,
because a client discovers its public IP address and port numbers,
and inserts them in its SETUP requests, when the RTSP ALG processes
the SETUP request it may change the destination and port number,
resulting in unpredictable behavior.
6.1.6. Deployment Considerations
For the non-embedded usage of STUN the following applies:
Advantages:
- Using STUN does not require RTSP server modifications; it only
affects the client implementation.
Disadvantages:
- Requires a STUN server deployed in the public address space.
- Only works with Cone NATs. Restricted Cone NATs create some
issues. Does not work with Symmetric NATs without server
modifications.
- Will mostly not work if a NAT uses multiple IP addresses, since
RTSP server generally requires all media streams to use the same IP
as used in the RTSP connection (for more on this subject, see next
section, security considerations).
- Interaction problems exist when a RTSP ALG is not aware of STUN.
- Using STUN requires that RTSP servers and clients support the
updated RTSP specification.
Transition:
The usage of STUN can be phased out gradually as the first step of a
STUN capable machine can be to check the presence of NATs for the
presently used network connection. The removal of STUN capability in
the client implementations will however most probably wait until no
need at all exists to use STUN.
For the Embedded STUN method the following applies:
Advantages:
- STUN is a solution first used by SIP applications. As shown above,
with little or no changes, RTSP application can re-use STUN as a
NAT traversal solution, avoiding the pit-fall of solving a problem
twice.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
- STUN has built-in message authentication features, which makes it
more secure. See next section for an in-depth security discussion.
- This solution works as long as there is only one RTSP end point in
the private address realm, regardless of the NATÆs type. There may
even be multiple NATs (see figure 1 in [6]).
- Compares to other UDP based NAT traversal methods in this
document, STUN requires little new protocol development (since STUN
is already a IETF standard), and most likely less implementation
effort, since open source STUN server and client have become
available [21]. There is the need to embed STUN in RTSP server and
client, which require a de-multiplexer between STUN packets and
RTP/RTCP packets. There is also a need to register the proper
feature tags.
Disadvantages:
- Some extensions to the RTSP core protocol, signaled by RTSP
feature tags, must be introduced.
- Requires an embedded STUN server to co-locate on each of RTSP
serverÆs media protocol's ports (e.g. RTP and RTCP ports), which
means more processing is required to de-multiplex STUN packets from
media packets. For example, the de-multiplexer must be able to
differentiate a RTCP RR packet from a STUN packet, and forward the
former to the streaming server, the later to STUN server.
- It does not work if none of the RTSP server and client is in the
public address realm, and each of them is behind a different NAT.
- Even if the RTSP server is in the open, and the client is behind a
multi-addressed NAT, it may still break if the RTSP server does not
allow RTP packets to be sent to an IP differs from the IP of the
clientÆs RTSP request.
- Interaction problems exist when a RTSP ALG is not aware of STUN.
- Using STUN requires that RTSP servers and clients support the
updated RTSP specification, and they both agree to support the
proper feature tag.
Transition:
The usage of STUN can be phased out gradually as the first step of a
STUN capable machine can be to check the presence of NATs for the
presently used network connection. The removal of STUN capability in
the client implementations will however most probably wait until
there is no need at all to use STUN.
6.1.7. Security Considerations
To prevent RTSP server being used as Denial of Service (DoS) attack
tools the RTSP Transport header parameter "destination" and
"dest_addr" are generally not allowed to point to any IP address
other than the one that RTSP message originates from. The RTSP server
is only prepared to make an exception of this rule when the client is
trusted (e.g., through the use of a secure authentication process, or
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
through some secure method of challenging the destination to verify
its willingness to accept the UDP traffic). Such restriction means
that STUN does not work for NATs that would assign different IP
addresses to different UDP flows on its public side. Therefore most
multi-addressed NATs will not work with STUN.
In terms of security property, STUN combined with destination address
restricted RTSP has the same security properties as the core RTSP. It
is protected from being used as a DoS attack tool unless the attacker
has ability to hijack RTSP stream.
Using STUN's support for message authentication and secure transport
of RTSP messages, attackers cannot modify STUN responses or RTSP
messages to change media destination. This protects against
hijacking, however as a client can be the initiator of an attack,
these mechanisms cannot securely prevent RTSP servers being used as
DoS attack tools.
6.2. ICE
6.2.1. Introduction
ICE (Interactive Connectivity Establishment) [9] is a methodology for
NAT traversal that is under development for SIP. The basic idea is to
try, in a parallel fashion, all possible connection addresses that an
end point may have. This allows the end-point to use the best
available UDP "connection" (meaning two UDP end-points capable of
reaching each other). The methodology has very nice properties in
that basically all NAT topologies are possible to traverse.
Here is how ICE works. End point A collects all possible address that
can be used, including local IP addresses, STUN derived addresses,
TURN addresses. On each local port that any of these address and port
pairs leads to, a STUN server is installed. This STUN server only
accepts STUN requests using the correct authentication through the
use of username and password.
End-point A then sends a request to establish connectivity with end-
point B, which includes all possible ways to get the media through to
A. Note that each of AÆs published address/port pairs has a STUN
server co-located. B, before responding to A, uses a STUN client to
try to reach all the address and port pairs specified by A. The
destinations for which the STUN requests have successfully completed
are then indicated. If bi-directional communication is intended the
end-point B must then in its turn offer A all its reachable address
and port pairs, which then are tested by A.
If B fails to get any STUN response from A, all hope is not lost.
Certain NAT topologies require multiple tries from both ends before
successful connectivity is accomplished. The STUN requests may also
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
result in that more connectivity alternatives are discovered and
conveyed in the STUN responses.
This chapter is not yet a full technical solution. It is mostly a
feasibility study on how ICE could be applied to RTSP and what
properties it would have. One nice thing about ICE for RTSP is that
it does make it possible to deploy RTSP server behind NAT/FIRWALL, a
desirable option to some RTSP applications.
6.2.2. Using ICE in RTSP
The usage of ICE for RTSP requires that both client and server be
updated to include the ICE functionality. If both parties implement
the necessary functionality the following step-by-step algorithm
could be used to accomplish connectivity for the UDP traffic.
This assumes that it is possible to establish a TCP connection for
the RTSP messages between the client and the server. This is not
trivial in scenarios where the server is located behind a NAT, and
may require some TCP ports been opened, or the deployment of proxies,
etc.
Refer to [22] for the mapping of ICE to RTSP.
6.2.3. Implementation burden of ICE
The usage of ICE will require that a number of new protocols and new
RTSP/SDP features be implemented. This makes ICE the solution that
has the largest impact on client and server implementations amongst
all the NAT/FW traversal methods in this document.
Some RTSP server implementation requirements are:
- Full STUN server features
- limited STUN client features
- Dynamic SDP generation with more parameters.
- RTSP error code for ICE extension
Some client implantation requirements are:
- Limited STUN server features
- Limited STUN client features
- RTSP error code and ICE extension
6.2.4. Deployment Considerations
Advantages:
- Solves NAT connectivity discovery for basically all cases as long
as a TCP connection between them can be established in the first
hand. This includes servers behind NATs. (Note that a proxy between
address domains may be required to get TCP through).
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
- Improves defenses against DDOS attacks as media receiving client
requires authentications, via STUN on its media reception ports.
See [22] for more details.
Disadvantages:
- Increases the setup delay with at least the amount of time it
takes the server to perform its STUN requests.
- Assumes that it is possible to de-multiplex between media packets
and STUN packets.
- Has fairly high implementation burden for both server and client.
Exactly implantation complexity needs to be assessed once ICE is
fully defined as a standard. Currently ICE is still a protocol
under development.
6.3. Symmetric RTP
6.3.1. Introduction
Symmetric RTP is a NAT traversal solution that is based on requiring
NATed clients to send UDP packets to the serverÆs media send ports.
In core RTSP, usage of RTP over UDP is uni-directional, where the
server sends RTP packets to clientÆs RTP port. Symmetric RTP is
similar to connection-oriented traffic, where one side (e.g., the
RTSP client) first "connects" by sending a RTP packet to the other
sideÆs RTP port, the recipient then replies to the originating IP and
port.
Specifically, when the RTSP server receives the "connect" RTP packet
from its client, it copies the source IP and Port number and uses
them as delivery address for media packets. By having the server send
media traffic back the same way as the client's packet are sent to
the server, address mappings will be honored. Therefore this
technique has the advantage of working for all types of NATs.
However, it does require server modifications. Symmetric RTP is
somewhat more vulnerable to hijacking attacks, which will be
explained in more details in the section discussing security
concerns.
6.3.2. Necessary RTSP extensions
To support symmetric RTP the RTSP signaling must be extended to allow
the RTSP client to indicate that it will use symmetric RTP. The
client also needs to be able to signal its RTP SSRC to the server in
its SETUP request. The RTP SSRC is used to establish some basic level
of security against hijacking attacks. Care must be taken in choosing
clientÆs RTP SSRC. First, it must be unique within all the RTP
sessions belonging to the same RTSP session. Secondly, if the RTSP
server is sending out media packets to multiple clients from the same
send port, the RTP SSRC needs to be unique amongst those clientsÆ RTP
sessions. Recognizing that there is a potential that RTP SSRC
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
collision may occur, the RTSP server must be able to signal to client
that a collision has occurred and that it wants the client to use a
different RTP SSRC carried in the SETUP response.
Details of the RTSP extension are beyond the scope of this draft and
will be defined in a TBD RTSP extension draft.
6.3.3. Deployment Considerations
Advantages:
- Works for all types of NATs, including those using multiple IP
addresses.
- Have no interaction problems with any RTSP ALG changing the
client's information in the transport header.
Disadvantages:
- Requires Server support.
- Has somewhat worse security situation then STUN when using address
restrictions.
- Still requires STUN to discover the timeout of NAT bindings.
6.3.4. Security Consideration
Symmetric RTP's major security issue is that RTP streams can be
hijacked and directed towards any target that the attacker desires.
The method has also no protection if client desires to initiate media
streams to a target to launch DDOS attacks.
The most serious security problem is the deliberate attack with the
use of a RTSP client and symmetric RTP. The attacker uses RTSP to
setup a media session. Then it uses symmetric RTP with a spoofed
source address of the intended target of the attack. There is no
defense against this attack other than restricting the possible bind
address to be the same as the RTSP connection arrived on. This
prevents symmetric RTP to be used with multi-address NATs.
The hijack attack can be performed in various ways. The basic attack
is based on the ability to read the RTSP signaling packets in order
to learn the address and port the server will send from and also the
SSRC the client will use. Having this information the attacker can
send its own RTP packets containing the correct RTP SSRC to the
correct address and port on the server. The destination of the
packets is set as the source IP and port in these RTP packets.
Another variation of this attack is to modify the RTP binding packet
being sent to the server by simply changing the source IP to the
target one desires to attack.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
One can protect oneself against the first attack by applying
encryption to the RTSP signaling transport. However, the second
variation is impossible to defend against. As a NAT re-writes the
source IP and port this cannot be authenticated, which is required in
order to protect against this type of DOS attack.
The random SSRC tag in the binding packet determines how well
symmetric RTP can fend off streaming hijacking performed by parties
that are not "men-in-the-middle".
This proposal uses the 32-bit RTP SSRC field to this effect.
Therefore it is important that this field is derived with a non-
predictive randomizer. It should not be possible by knowing the
algorithm used and a couple of basic facts, to derive what random
number a certain client will use.
An attacker not knowing the SSRC but aware of which port numbers that
a server sends from can deploy a brute force attack on the server by
testing a lot of different SSRCs until it finds a matching one.
Therefore a server SHOULD implement functionality that blocks ports
that receive multiple binding packets with different invalid SSRCs,
especially when they are coming from the same IP/Port.
To improve the security against attackers the random tags length
could be increased. To achieve a longer random tag while still using
RTP and RTCP, it will be necessary to develop RTP and RTCP payload
formats for carrying the random tag.
6.4. Application Level Gateways
6.4.1. Introduction
An Application Level Gateway (ALG) reads the application level
messages and performs necessary changes to allow the protocol to work
through the middle box. However this behavior has some problems in
regards to RTSP:
1. It does not work when the RTSP protocol is used with end-to-end
security. As the ALG can't inspect and change the application level
messages the protocol will fail due to the middle box.
2. ALGs need to be updated if extensions to the protocol are added.
Due to deployment issues with changing ALG's this may also break the
end-to-end functionality of RTSP.
Due to the above reasons it is NOT RECOMMENDED to use an RTSP ALG in
NATs. This is especially important for NAT's targeted to home users
and small office environments, since it is very hard to upgrade NATÆs
deployed in home or SOHO (small office/home office) environment.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
6.4.2. Guidelines On Writing ALGs for RTSP
In this section, we provide a step-by-step guideline on how one
should go about writing an ALG to enable RTSP to traverse a NAT.
1. Detect any SETUP request.
2. Try to detect the usage of any of the NAT traversal methods that
replace the address and port of the Transport header parameters
"destination" or "dest_addr". If any of these methods are used,
the ALG SHOULD NOT change the address. Ways to detect that these
methods are used are:
- For embedded STUN, watch for the feature tag "nat.stun". If any
of those exists in the "supported", "proxy-require", or "require"
headers of the RTSP exchange.
- For non-embedded STUN and TURN based solutions: This can in some
case be detected by inspecting the "destination" or "dest_addr"
parameter. If it contains either one of the NAT's external IP
addresses or a public IP address. However if multiple NATs are
used this detection may fail.
Otherwise continue to the next step.
3. Create UDP mappings (client given IP/port <-> external IP/port)
where needed for all possible transport specification in the
transport header of the request found in (1). Enter the public
address and port(s) of these mappings in transport header.
Mappings SHALL be created with consecutive public port number
starting on an even number for RTP each stream. Mappings SHOULD
also be given a long timeout period, at least 5 minutes.
4. When the SETUP response is received from the server the ALG MAY
remove the unused UDP mappings, i.e. the ones not present in the
transport header. The session ID SHOULD also be bound to the UDP
mappings part of that session.
5. If SETUP response settles on RTP over TCP or RTP over RTSP as
lower transport, do nothing: let TCP tunneling to take care of NAT
traversal. Otherwise go to next step.
6. The ALG SHOULD keep alive the UDP mappings belonging to the an
RTSP session as long as: RTSP messages with the session's ID has
been sent in the last timeout interval, or UDP messages are sent
on any of the UDP mappings during the last timeout interval.
7. The ALG MAY remove a mapping as soon a TEARDOWN response has been
received for that media stream.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
6.4.3. Deployment Considerations
Advantage:
- No impact on either client or server
- Can work for any type of NATs
Disadvantage:
- When deployed they are hard to update to reflect protocol
modifications and extensions. If not updated they will break the
functionality.
- When end-to-end security is used the ALG functionality will fail.
- Can interfere with other type of traversal mechanisms, such as
STUN.
Transition:
An RTSP ALG will not be phased out in any automatically way. It must
be removed, probably through the removal of the NAT it is associated
with.
6.4.4. Security Considerations
An ALG will not work when deployment of end-to-end RTSP signaling
security. Therefore deployment of ALG will result in that end-to-end
security will not be used by clients located behind NATs.
6.5. TCP Tunneling
6.5.1. Introduction
Using a TCP connection that is established from the client to the
server ensures that the server can send data to the client. The
connection opened from the private domain ensures that the server can
send data back to the client. To send data originally intended to be
transported over UDP requires the TCP connection to support some type
of framing of the RTP packets.
Using TCP also results in that the client has to accept that real-
time performance may no longer be possible. TCP's problem of ensuring
timely deliver was the reasons why RTP was developed. Problems that
arise with TCP are: head-of-line blocking, delay introduced by
retransmissions, highly varying congestion control.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 20]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
6.5.2. Usage of TCP tunneling in RTSP
The RTSP core specification [7] supports interleaving of media data
on the TCP connection that carries RTSP signaling. See section 10.13
in [7] for how to perform this type of TCP tunneling.
There is currently new work on one more way of transporting RTP over
TCP in AVT and MMUSIC. For signaling and rules on how to establish
the TCP connection in lieu of UDP, see [16]. Another draft describes
how to frame RTP over the TCP connection is described in [17].
6.5.3. Deployment Considerations
Advantage:
- Works through all types of NATs where server is in the open.
Disadvantage:
- Functionality needs to be implemented on both server and client.
- Will not always meet multimedia streamÆs real-time requirements.
Transition:
The tunneling over RTSP's TCP connection is not planned to be phased
-out. It is intended to be a fallback mechanism and for usage when
total media reliability is desired, even at the price of loss of
real-time properties.
6.5.4. Security Considerations
The TCP tunneling of RTP has no known security problem besides those
already present in RTSP. It is not possible to get any amplification
effect that is desired for denial of service attacks due to TCP's
flow control.
A possible security consideration, when session media data is
interleaved with RTSP, would be the performance bottleneck when RTSP
encryption is applied, since all session media data also needs to be
encrypted.
6.6. TURN (Traversal Using Relay NAT)
6.6.1. Introduction
Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN) [8] is a protocol for setting up
traffic relays that allows clients behind NATs and firewalls to
receive incoming traffic for both UDP and TCP. These relays are
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 21]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
controlled and have limited resources. They need to be allocated
before usage.
TURN allows a client to temporarily bind an address/port pair on the
relay (TURN server) to its local source address/port pair, which is
used to contact the TURN server. The TURN server will then forward
packets between the two sides of the relay. To prevent DOS attacks on
either recipient, the packets forwarded are restricted to the
specific source address. On the client side it is restricted to the
source setting up the mapping. On the external side this is limited
to the source address/port pair of the first packet arriving on the
binding. After the first packet has arrived the mapping is "locked
down" to that address. Packets from any other source on this address
will be discarded.
Using a TURN server makes it possible for a RTSP client to receive
media streams from even an unmodified RTSP server. However the
problem is that RTSP server may restrict that destinations other than
the IP address that the RTSP message arrives from shall not be
accepted. This means that TURN could only be used if the server knows
and accepts that the IP belongs to a TURN server and the TURN server
can't be targeted at an unknown address. Unfortunately TURN servers
can be targeted at any host that has a public IP address by spoofing
the source IP of TURN Allocation requests.
6.6.2. Usage of TURN with RTSP
To use a TURN server for NAT traversal, the following steps should be
performed.
1. The RTSP client connects with RTSP server. The client retrieves
the session description to determine the number of media streams.
2. The client establishes the necessary bindings on the TURN server.
It must choose the local RTP and RTCP ports that it desires to
receive media packets. TURN supports requesting bindings of even
port numbers and continuous ranges.
3. The RTSP client uses the acquired address and port mappings in the
RTSP SETUP request using the destination header. Note that the
server is required to have a mechanism to verify that it is
allowed to send media traffic to the given address. The server
SHOULD include its RTP SSRC in the SETUP response.
4. Client requests that the Server starts playing. The server starts
sending media packet to the given destination address and ports.
5. The first media packet to arrive at the TURN server on the
external port causes "lock down"; then TURN server forwards the
media packets to the RTSP client.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 22]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
6. When media arrives at the client, the client should try to verify
that the media packets are from the correct RTSP server, by
matching the RTP SSRC of the packet. Source IP address of this
packet will be that of the TURN server and can therefore not be
used to verify that the correct source has caused lock down.
7. If the client notices that some other source has caused lock down
on the TURN server, the client should create new bindings and
change the session transport parameters to reflect the new
bindings.
8. If the client pauses and media are not sent for about 75% of the
mapping timeout the client should use TURN to refresh the
bindings.
6.6.3. Deployment Considerations
Advantages:
- Does not require any server modifications.
- Works for any types of NAT as long as the server has public
reachable IP address.
Disadvantage
- TURN is not yet a standard.
- Requires another network element, namely the TURN server.
- Such a TURN server for RTSP is not scalable since the number of
sessions it must forward is proportional to the number of client
media sessions.
- TURN server becomes a single point of failure.
- Since TURN forwards media packets, it necessarily introduces
delay.
- Requires that the server can verify that the given destination
address is valid to be used by the client.
- An RTSP ALG MAY change the necessary destinations parameter. This
will cause the media traffic to be sent to the wrong address.
Transition:
TURN is not intended to be phase-out completely, see chapter 11.2 of
[8]. However the usage of TURN could be reduced when the demand for
having NAT traversal is reduced.
6.6.4. Security Considerations
An eavesdropper of RTSP messages between the RTSP client and RTSP
server will be able to do a simple denial of service attack on the
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 23]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
media streams by sending messages to the destination address and port
present in the RTSP SETUP messages. If the attackerÆs message can
reach the TURN server before the RTSP server's message, the lock down
can be accomplished towards some other address. This will result in
that the TURN server will drop all the media server's packets when
they arrive. This can be accomplished with little risk for the
attacker of being caught, as it can be performed with a spoofed
source IP. The client may detect this attack when it receives the
lock down packet sent by the attacker as being mal-formatted and not
corresponding to the expected context. It will also notice the lack
of incoming packets. See bullet 7 in section 6.6.2.
The TURN server can also become part of a denial of service attack
towards any victim. To perform this attack the attacker must be able
to eavesdrop on the packets from the TURN server towards a target for
the DOS attack. The attacker uses the TURN server to setup a RTSP
session with media flows going through the TURN server. The attacker
is in fact creating TURN mappings towards a target by spoofing the
source address of TURN requests. As the attacker will need the
address of these mappings he must be able to eavesdrop or intercept
the TURN responses going from the TURN server to the target. Having
these addresses, he can set up a RTSP session and starts delivery of
the media. The attacker must be able to create these mappings. The
attacker in this case may be traced by the TURN username in the
mapping requests.
The first attack can be made very hard by applying transport security
for the RTSP messages, which will hide the TURN servers address and
port numbers from any eavesdropper.
The second attack requires that the attacker have access to a user
account on the TURN server to be able set up the TURN mappings. To
prevent this attack the server shall verify that the target
destination accept this media stream.
7. Firewalls
Firewalls exist for the purpose of protecting a network from traffic
not desired by the firewall owner. Therefore it is a policy decision
if a firewall will let RTSP and its media streams through or not.
RTSP is designed to be firewall friendly in that it should be easy to
design firewall policies to permit passage of RTSP traffic and its
media streams.
The firewall will need to allow the media streams associated with a
RTSP session pass through it. Therefore the firewall will need an ALG
that reads RTSP SETUP and TEARDOWN messages. By reading the SETUP
message the firewall can determine what type of transport and from
where the media streams will use. Commonly there will be the need to
open UDP ports for RTP/RTCP. By looking at the source and destination
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 24]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
addresses and ports the opening in the firewall can be minimized to
the least necessary. The opening in the firewall can be closed after
a teardown message for that session or the session itself times out.
Simpler firewalls do allow a client to receive media as long as it
has sent packets to the target. Depending on the security level this
can have the same behavior as a full cone NAT or a Symmetric NAT. The
only difference is that no address translation is done. To be able to
use such a firewall a client would need to implement one of the above
described NAT traversal methods that include sending packets to the
server to open up the mappings.
8. Open Issues
Some open issues with this draft:
- At some point we need to recommend one RTSP NAT solution so as to
ensure implementations can inter-operate. This decision will
require that requirements, security and desired goals are evaluated
against implementation cost and the probability to get the final
solution deployed.
- The ALG recommendations need to be improved and clarified.
- The firewall RTSP ALG recommendations need to be written as they
are different from the NAT ALG in some perspectives.
9. Security Consideration
In preceding sessions we have discussed security merits of each and
every NAT/FW traversal methods for RTSP. In summary, the presence of
NAT(s) is a security risk, as a client cannot perform source
authentication of its IP address. This prevents the deployment of any
future RTSP extensions providing security against hijacking of
sessions by a man-in-the-middle.
Each of these has security implications.
Using STUN will provide the same level of security as RTSP with out
transport level security and source authentications; as long as the
server does not grant a client request to send media to different IP
addresses.
Using symmetric RTP will have a slightly higher risk of session
hijacking than normal RTSP. The reason is that there exists a
probability that an attacker is able to guess the random tag that the
client uses to prove its identity when creating the address bindings.
The usage of an RTSP ALG does not increase in itself the risk for
session hijacking. However the deployment of ALGs as sole mechanism
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 25]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
for RTSP NAT traversal will prevent deployment of encrypted end-to-
end RTSP signaling.
The usage of TCP tunneling has no known security problems. However it
might provide a bottleneck when it comes to end-to-end RTSP signaling
security if TCP tunneling is used on a interleaved RTSP signaling
connection.
The usage of TURN has high risk of denial of service attacks against
a client. The TURN server can also be used as a redirect point in a
DDOS attack unless the server has strict enough rules for who may
create bindings.
10. IANA Consideration
This specification does not define any protocol extensions hence no
IANA action is requested.
11. Acknowledgments
The author would also like to thank all persons on the MMUSIC working
group's mailing list that has commented on this specification.
Persons having contributed in such way in no special order to this
protocol are: Jonathan Rosenberg, Philippe Gentric, Tom Marshall,
David Yon, Amir Wolf, Anders Klemets, and Colin Perkins. Thomas Zeng
would also like to give special thanks to Greg Sherwood of
PacketVideo for his input into this memo.
12. Author's Addresses
Magnus Westerlund Tel: +46 8 4048287
Ericsson Research Email: Magnus.Westerlund@ericsson.com
Ericsson AB
Torshamnsgatan 23
SE-164 80 Stockholm, SWEDEN
Thomas Zeng Tel: 1-858-320-3125
PacketVideo
Network Solutions Email: zeng@pvnetsolutions.com
9605 Scranton Rd., Suite 400
San Diego, CA92121
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 26]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
13. References
13.1. Normative references
[1] H. Schulzrinne, et. al., "Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)",
IETF RFC 2326, April 1998.
[2] M. Handley, V. Jacobson, "Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
IETF RFC 2327, April 1998.
[3] D. Crocker and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for syntax specifica-
tions: ABNF," RFC 2234, Internet Engineering Task Force, Nov.
1997.
[4] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[5] H. Schulzrinne, et. al., "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-
Time Applications", IETF RFC 1889, January 1996.
[6] J. Rosenberg, et. Al., " STUN - Simple Traversal of UDP Through
Network Address Translators", IETF RFC 3489, March 2003
[7] H. Schulzrinne, et. al., "Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)",
draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-04.txt, IETF draft, June 2003, work
in progress.
[8] J. Rosenberg, et. Al., "Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN)",
draft-rosenberg-midcom-turn-01.txt, IETF draft, March 2003, work
in progress.
[9] J. Rosenberg, "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A
Methodology for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)," draft-rosenberg-sipping-
ice-00, IETF draft, February 2003, work in progress.
[10] G. Camarillo, et. al., "Grouping of Media Lines in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)," IETF RFC 3388, December 2002.
[11] G. Camarillo, J. Rosenberg, " The Alternative Semantics for the
Session Description Protocol Grouping Framework," draft-
camarillo-mmusic-alt-01.txt, IETF draft, June 2002, work in
progress.
13.2. Informative References
[12] P. Srisuresh, K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network Address
Translator (Traditional NAT)," RFC 3022, Internet Engineering
Task Force, January 2001.
[13] Tsirtsis, G. and Srisuresh, P., "Network Address Translation -
Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766, Internet Engineering
Task Force, February 2000.
[14] S. Deering and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 2460, Internet Engineering Task Force,
December 1998.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 27]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
[15] J. Postel, "internet protocol", RFC 791, Internet Engineering
Task Force, September 1981.
[16] D. Yon, "Connection-Oriented Media Transport in SDP", IETF
draft, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-04.txt, July 2002.
[17] John Lazzaro, "Framing RTP and RTCP Packets over Connection-
Oriented Transport", IETF Draft, draft-lazzaro-avt-rtp-framing-
contrans-00.txt, January 2003.
[18] D. Daigle, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-Address
Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation", RFC 3424,
Internet Engineering Task Force, Nov. 2002
[19] R. Finlayason, "IP Multicast and Firewalls", RFC 2588, Internet
Engineering Task Force, May 1999
[20] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and Canetti, R.: "HMAC: Keyed-hashing
for message authentication". IETF RFC 2104, February 1997
[21] Open Source STUN Server and Client,
http://www.vovida.org/applications/downloads/stun/index.html
[22] Zeng, T.M.: ôMapping ICE (Interactive Connectivity
Establishment) to RTSPö, IETF draft, draft-zeng-mmusic-map-ice-
rtsp-00.txt, Feb 2004
14. IPR Notice
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 28]
INTERNET-DRAFT How to make RTSP traverse NAT & FW Feb. 16, 2004
15. Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and
furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or
otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be
prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in
part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above
copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such
copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may
not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright
notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet
organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights
defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or
as required to translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will
not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or
assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
This Internet-Draft expires in August 2004.
Westerlund, Zeng Standards Track [Page 29]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 23:58:59 |