One document matched: draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-06.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-06"
ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="Optimizing Keepalives with PCP">Optimizing NAT and Firewall
Keepalives Using Port Control Protocol (PCP)</title>
<author fullname="Tirumaleswar Reddy" initials="T." surname="Reddy">
<organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Cessna Business Park, Varthur Hobli</street>
<street>Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road</street>
<city>Bangalore</city>
<region>Karnataka</region>
<code>560103</code>
<country>India</country>
</postal>
<email>tireddy@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Prashanth Patil" initials="P." surname="Patil">
<organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems, Inc</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<street></street>
<city>Bangalore</city>
<region></region>
<code></code>
<country>India</country>
</postal>
<email>praspati@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Markus Isomaki" initials="M." surname="Isomaki">
<organization>Nokia</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Keilalahdentie 2-4</street>
<city>FI-02150 Espoo</city>
<country>Finland</country>
</postal>
<email>markus.isomaki@nokia.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Dan Wing" initials="D." surname="Wing">
<organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>170 West Tasman Drive</street>
<city>San Jose</city>
<region>California</region>
<code>95134</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>dwing@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date />
<workgroup>PCP</workgroup>
<abstract>
<t>This document describes how Port Control Protocol is useful in
reducing NAT and firewall keepalive messages for a variety of
applications.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>Many types of applications need to keep their Network Address
Translator (NAT) and Firewall (FW) mappings alive for long periods of
time, even when they are otherwise not sending or receiving any traffic.
This is typically done by sending periodic keep-alive messages just to
prevent the mappings from expiring. As NAT/FW mapping timers may be
short and unknown to the endpoint, the frequency of these keepalives may
be high. An IPv4 or IPv6 host can use the Port Control Protocol
(PCP)<xref target="RFC6887"></xref> to flexibly manage the IP address
and port mapping information on NATs and Firewalls to facilitate
communications with remote hosts. This document describes how PCP can be
used to reduce keepalive messages for both client-server and
peer-to-peer type of communication.</t>
<t>The mechanism described in this document is especially useful in
cellular mobile networks, where frequent keepalive messages make the
radio transition between active and power-save states causing congestion
in the signaling path. The excessive time spent on the active state due
to keepalives also greatly reduces the battery life of the cellular
connected devices such as smartphones or tablets. <xref
target="I-D.ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile"></xref> recommends
cellular hosts to be PCP-compliant in order to save battery consumption
exacerbated by keepalive messages.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="notation" title="Notational Conventions">
<t>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 <xref
target="RFC2119"></xref>.</t>
<t>This note uses terminology defined in <xref target="RFC5245"></xref>
and <xref target="RFC6887"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Overview of Operation">
<section title="Application Scenarios">
<t>PCP can help both client-server and peer-to-peer applications to
reduce their keepalive rate. The relevant applications are the ones
that need to keep their NAT/FW mappings alive for long periods of
time, for instance to be able to send or receive application messages
in both directions at any time.</t>
<t>A typical client-server scenario is depicted in <xref
target="figure1"></xref>. A client, who may reside behind one or
multiple layers of NATs/FWs, opens a connection to a globally
reachable server, and keeps it open to be able to receive messages
from the server at any time. The connection may be a
connection-oriented transport protocol such as TCP or SCTP or
connection-less transport protocol such as UDP. Protocols operating in
this manner include the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) <xref
target="RFC3261"></xref>, the Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP) <xref target="RFC3921"></xref>, the Internet Mail
Application Protocol (IMAP) <xref target="RFC2177"></xref> with its
IDLE command, the WebSocket protocol <xref target="RFC6455"></xref>
and the various HTTP long-polling protocols. There are also a number
of proprietary instant messaging, Voice over IP, e-mail and
notification delivery protocols that belong in this category. All of
these protocols aim to keep the client-server connection alive for as
long as the application is running. When the application has otherwise
no traffic to send, specific keepalive messages are sent periodically
to ensure that the NAT/FW state in the middle does not expire. The
client can use PCP to keep the required mappings at the NAT/FWs and
use application keepalives to keep the state on the Application
Server/Peer as mentioned in <xref target="optimize"></xref>.</t>
<t><figure anchor="figure1"
title="PCP with Client-Server applications">
<artwork><![CDATA[
PCP PCP
Client Server __________
+-----------+ +------+ / \ +-----------+
|Application|___| NAT/ |____| Internet |___|Application|
| Client | | FW | | | | Server |
+-----------+ +------+ \__________/ +-----------+
(multiple
layers)
------------> PCP
----------------------------------------->
Application keepalive
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>There are also scenarios where the long-term communication
association is between two peers, both of whom may reside behind one
or more layers of NAT/FW. This is depicted in <xref
target="figure2"></xref>. The initiation of the association may have
happened using mechanisms such as Interactive Communications
Establishment (ICE), perhaps first triggered by a "signaling" protocol
such as SIP or XMPP or WebRTC <xref
target="I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview"></xref>. Examples of the
peer-to-peer protocols include RTP and WebRTC data channel. A number
of proprietary VoIP or video call or streaming or file transfer
protocols also exist in this category. Typically the communication is
based on UDP, but TCP or SCTP may be used. If there is no traffic
flowing, the peers have to inject periodic keepalive packets to keep
the NAT/FW mappings on both sides of the communication active. Instead
of application keepalives, both peers can use PCP to control the
mappings on the NAT/FWs to reduce the keepalive frequency as explained
in <xref target="optimize"></xref>.</t>
<t><figure anchor="figure2" title="PCP with Peer-to-Peer applications">
<artwork><![CDATA[
PCP PCP PCP PCP
Client Server __________ Server Client
+-----------+ +------+ / \ +------+ +-----------+
|Application|___| NAT/ |____| Internet |___| NAT/ |___|Application|
| Peer | | FW | | | | FW | | Peer |
+-----------+ +------+ \__________/ +------+ +-----------+
(multiple (multiple
layers) layers)
------------> PCP PCP <------------
<--------------------------------------------------->
Application keepalive
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
</section>
<section title="NAT Topologies and Detection">
<t>Before an application can reduce its keepalive rate, it has to make
sure it has all of the NATs and firewalls on its path under control.
This means it has to detect the presence of any PCP-unaware NATs and
firewalls on its path to the Internet.</t>
<section anchor="PCPb" title="PCP based detection">
<t>PCP itself is able to detect unexpected NATs between the PCP
client and PCP server as depicted in <xref target="figure3"></xref>.
The PCP client includes its own IP address and UDP port within the
PCP request. The PCP server compares them to the source IP address
and UDP port it sees on the packet. If they differ, there are one or
more additional NATs between the PCP client and PCP server, and the
server will return an error. Unless the application has some other
means (like UPnP) to control these PCP unaware NATs, it has to fall
back to its default keepalive mechanism.</t>
<t><figure anchor="figure3"
title="PCP unaware NAT between PCP client and PCP server">
<artwork><![CDATA[
PCP PCP PCP
Client Unaware Aware __________
+-----------+ +------+ +------+ / \ +-----------+
|Application|___| NAT |___| NAT/ |____| Internet |___|Application|
| Client | | | | FW | | | | Server |
+-----------+ +------+ +------+ \__________/ +-----------+
<-----------///---------->
PCP based detection
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
</section>
<section anchor="App" title="Application based detection">
<t><xref target="figure4"></xref> shows a topology where one or more
PCP unaware NATs are deployed on the exterior of the PCP capable
NAT/FWs. To detect this, the application client must have the
capability to request from its application server or peer what IP
and transport address it sees. If those differ from the IP and
transport address given by the PCP aware NAT/FW then the application
client can determine that there is at least one PCP unaware NAT on
the path. In this case, the application client has to fall back to
its default keepalive mechanism.</t>
<t><figure anchor="figure4"
title="PCP unaware NAT external to the last PCP aware NAT">
<artwork><![CDATA[
PCP PCP PCP
Client Aware Unaware __________
+-----------+ +------+ +------+ / \ +-----------+
|Application|___| NAT/ |___| NAT |____| Internet |___|Application|
| Client | | FW | | | | | | Server |
+-----------+ +------+ +------+ \__________/ +-----------+
<------------>
PCP
<---------------------///--------------------------->
Application based detection
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Detect" title="Detection of PCP unaware firewalls">
<t>PCP and application based detection mechanisms explained in <xref
target="PCPb"></xref> and <xref target="App"></xref> are based on
change in the address and will not detect PCP unaware firewalls. In
order to detect a PCP unaware firewall, the application client sends a
Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) <xref
target="RFC5389"></xref> Binding request to the STUN server. If STUN
server supports the STUN extensions defined in <xref
target="RFC5780"></xref> then it returns its alternate IP address and
alternate port in OTHER-ADDRESS attribute in the STUN Binding
response. The client then uses PCP to send MAP request with FILTER
option to PCP server to permit STUN server to reach the client using
the STUN servers alternate IP address and alternate port. The client
then sends a Binding request to the primary address of the STUN server
with the CHANGE-REQUEST attribute set to change-port and change-IP.
This will cause the server to send its response from its alternate IP
address and alternate port. If the client receives a response then the
client is aware that on path firewall devices are PCP aware. If the
client does not receive a response then the client is aware that there
could be one or more on path PCP unaware firewall devices. The
application client will perform the tests separately for each
transport protocol. If no response is received, the client will then
repeat the test at most three times for connectionless transport
protocols.</t>
<t><figure anchor="figure5" title="PCP unaware firewall">
<artwork><![CDATA[
PCP PCP PCP
Client Aware Unaware __________
+-----------+ +------+ +------+ / \ +-----------+
|Application|___| NAT/ |___| FW |____| Internet |___| STUN |
| Client | | FW | | | | | | Server |
+-----------+ +------+ +------+ \__________/ +-----------+
<--------------------------------------------------->
STUN
<------------>
PCP
X<---------------------------
STUN based detection
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>This procedure can be adopted by other protocols to detect PCP
unaware firewalls.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="optimize" title="Keepalive Optimization">
<t>If the application determines that all NATs and firewalls on its
path to the Internet support PCP, it can start using PCP instead of
its default keepalives to maintain the NAT/FW state. It can use PCP
PEER Request with the Requested Lifetime set to an appropriate value.
The application may still send some application-specific heartbeat
messages end-to-end to refresh state on the application server, which
typically requires keepalives far less frequently than NATs /FWs
do.</t>
<t>Processing the lifetime value of the PEER Opcode is described in
Sections 10.3 and 15 of <xref target="RFC6887"></xref>. Sending a PEER
request with a very short Requested Lifetime can be used to query the
lifetime of an existing mapping. PCP recommends that lifetimes of
mapping created or lengthened with PEER be longer than the lifetimes
of implicitly-created NAT and firewall mappings. Thus PCP can be used
to reduce power consumption by making PCP PEER message interval longer
than what the application would normally use to the keep the middle
box state alive, and strictly shorter than the server state refresh
interval.</t>
<t>An example of savings with PCP is described in <xref
target="savings"></xref>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="heuristics"
title="Keepalive Interval Determination Procedure when PCP unaware Firewall or NAT is detected ">
<t>If a PCP unaware NAT/firewall is detected, then a client can use the
following heuristics method to determine the keepalive interval:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>The client sends a STUN Binding request to the STUN server. This
connection is called the Primary Channel. STUN server will return
its alternate IP address and alternate port in OTHER-ADDRESS in the
Binding response <xref target="RFC5780"></xref>.</t>
<t>The client then sends a STUN Binding request to the STUN server
using alternate IP address and alternate port. This connection is
called the Secondary Channel.</t>
<t>The Client will initially set the default keepalive interval for
NAT/FW mappings to 60 seconds (FWa).</t>
<t>After FWa seconds the Client will send a Binding request to the
STUN server using the Primary Channel with the CHANGE-REQUEST
attribute set to change-port and change-IP. This will cause the STUN
server to send its response from the Secondary channel.</t>
<t>If the client receives response from the server then it will
increase the keepalive interval value FWa = (old FWa) + (old FWa)/2.
This indicates that NAT/FW mappings are alive.</t>
<t>Steps 4 and 5 will be repeated until there is no response from
the STUN server. If there is no response from the STUN server then
the client will use the old FWa value as Keepalive interval to
refresh FW/NAT mappings.</t>
</list></t>
<t>The above procedure will be done separately for each transport
protocol. For connectionless transport protocols such as UDP, if 2
seconds elapse without a response from the STUN server then the client
will repeat step 4 at most three times to handle packet loss.</t>
<t>This procedure can be adopted by other protocols to use Primary and
Secondary channels, so that the client can determine the keepalive
interval to refresh FW/NAT mapping. This procedure only serves as a
guideline and if applications already use some other heuristic to
determine the keepalive interval, they can continue with the existing
logic. For example Teredo determines the Refresh interval using the
procedure in "Optional Refresh Interval Determination Procedure"
(Section 5.2.7 of <xref target="RFC4380"></xref>).</t>
<t>Note: The keepalive interval learnt using the above method can be
inaccurate if a firewall is configured with an application-specific
inactivity timeout.</t>
<t>To improve reliability, applications SHOULD continue to use PCP to
lengthen the FW/NAT mappings even if the above mechanism is used to a
detect PCP unaware NAT/firewall. This ensures that PCP aware FW/NATs do
not close old mappings with no packet exchange when there is a
resource-scarcity situation.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="apps" title="Application-Specific Operation">
<t>This section describes how PCP is used with specific application
protocols.</t>
<section title="SIP">
<t>For connection-less transports the User Agent (UA) sends a STUN
Binding request over the SIP flow as described in section 4.4.2 of
<xref target="RFC5626"></xref>. The UA then learns the External IP
Address and Port using a PCP PEER request/response. If the
XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS in the STUN Binding response matches the external
address and port provided by PCP PEER response then the UA optimizes
the keepalive traffic as described in <xref target="optimize"></xref>.
There is no further need to send STUN Binding requests over the SIP
flow to keep the NAT Binding alive.</t>
<t>If the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS in the STUN Binding response does not
match the external address and port provided by the PCP PEER response
then PCP will not be used to keep the NAT bindings alive for the flow
that is being used for the SIP traffic. This means that multiple
layers of NAT are involved and intermediate NATs are not PCP aware. In
this case the UA will continue to use the technique in section 4.4.2
of <xref target="RFC5626"></xref>.</t>
<t>For connection-oriented transports, the UA sends a STUN Binding
request multiplexed with SIP over the TCP connection. STUN multiplexed
with other data over a TCP or TLS-over-TCP connection is explained in
section 7.2.2 of <xref target="RFC5389"></xref>. The UA then learns
the External IP address and port using a PCP PEER request/response. If
the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS in the STUN Binding response matches the
external address and port provided by the PCP PEER response, then the
UA optimizes the keepalive traffic as described in <xref
target="optimize"></xref>.</t>
<t>If the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS in the STUN Binding response does not
match the external address and port provided by the PCP PEER response,
then PCP will not be used to keep the NAT bindings alive. In this case
the UA performs a keepalive check by sending a double-CRLF (the
"ping") then waits to receive a single CRLF (the "pong") using the
technique in section 4.4.1 of <xref target="RFC5626"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="HTTP">
<t>Web Applications that require persistent connections use techniques
such as HTTP long polling and Websockets for session keep alive as
explained in section 3.1 of <xref
target="I-D.isomaki-rtcweb-mobile"></xref>. In such scenarios, after
the client establishes a connection with the HTTP server, it can
execute server side scripts such as PHP residing on the server to
provide the transport address and port of the HTTP client seen at the
HTTP server. In addition, the HTTP client also learns the external IP
Address and port using a PCP PEER request/response.</t>
<t>If the IP address and port learned from the server matches the
external address and port provided by the PCP PEER response then the
HTTP client optimizes keepalive traffic as described in <xref
target="optimize"></xref>.</t>
<t>If the IP address and port do not match, then PCP will not be used
to keep the NAT bindings alive for the flow that is being used for the
HTTP traffic. This means that there are NATs or HTTP proxies between
the PCP server and the HTTP server. The HTTP client will have to
resort to use existing techniques for keep alive. Please see <xref
target="example"></xref> for an example server side PHP script to
obtain the client source IP address.</t>
<t>The HTTP protocol allows intermediaries such as transparent proxies
to be involved and there is no way for the client to know that a
request/response is relayed through a proxy.</t>
</section>
<section title="Media and data channels with ICE">
<t>The ICE agent learns the External IP Addresses and Ports using the
PCP MAP opcode. If server reflexive candidates learnt using STUN <xref
target="RFC5389"></xref> and external IP addresses learnt using PCP
are different then candidates learnt through both STUN and PCP are
encoded in the ICE offer and answer . When using the Recommended
Formula explained in section 4.1.2.1 of <xref target="RFC5245"></xref>
to compute priority for the candidate learnt through PCP, the ICE
agent MUST use a preference value greater than the server reflexive
candidate and hence tested before the server reflexive candidate. The
recommended type preference value is 105 for candidates discovered
using PCP and is explained in section 4.2 of <xref
target="RFC6544"></xref>.</t>
<t>The ICE agent, in addition to the ICE connectivity checks, performs
the following:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>The ICE agent checks if the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS from the STUN
Binding response received as part of ICE connectivity check
matches the External IP address and Port provided by PCP MAP
response.</t>
<t>If the match is successful then PCP will be used to keep the
NAT bindings alive. The ICE agent optimizes keepalive traffic by
refreshing the mapping via a new PCP MAP request containing
information from the earlier PCP response.</t>
<t>If the match is not successful then PCP will not be used for
keep NAT binding alive. The ICE agent will use the technique in
section 4.4 of <xref target="RFC6263"></xref> to keep NAT bindings
alive. This means that multiple layers of NAT are involved and
intermediate NATs are not PCP- aware.</t>
</list></t>
<t>Some network operators deploying a PCP Server may allow PEER but
not MAP. In such cases the ICE agent learns the external IP address
and port using a STUN Binding request/response during ICE connectivity
checks. The ICE agent also learns the external IP Address and port
using a PCP PEER request/response. If the IP address and port learned
from the STUN Binding response matches the external address and port
provided by the PCP PEER response then the ICE agent optimizes
keepalive traffic as described in <xref target="optimize"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Detecting Flow Failure">
<t>Using the Rapid Recovery technique in section 14 of <xref
target="RFC6887"></xref> upon receiving a PCP ANNOUNCE from a PCP
server, a PCP client becomes aware that the PCP server has rebooted or
lost its mapping state. The PCP client issues new PCP requests to
recreate any lost mapping state and thus reconstructs lost mappings
fast enough that existing media, HTTP and SIP flows do not break. If
the NAT state cannot be recovered the endpoint will find the new
external address and port as part of the Rapid Recovery technique in
PCP itself and reestablish a connection with the peer.</t>
</section>
<section title="Firewalls">
<t>PCP allows applications to communicate with firewall devices with
PCP functionality to create mappings for incoming connections. In such
cases PCP can be used by the endpoint to create an explicit mapping on
firewall in order to permit inbound traffic. The endpoint can further
use PCP to send keepalives to keep the firewall mappings alive.</t>
<section title="IPv6 Network with Firewalls">
<t>For scenarios where the client uses the ICE Lite implementation
explained in section 2.7 of <xref target="RFC5245"></xref>, the ICE
Lite endpoint will not generate its own ICE connectivity checks, by
definition. As part of the call setup, the ICE Lite endpoint would
gather its host candidates and relayed candidate from a TURN server
and send the candidates in the offer to the peer endpoint. On
receiving the answer from the peer endpoint, the ICE Lite endpoint
sends a PCP MAP request with FILTER opcode to create a dynamic
mapping in the firewall to permit ICE connectivity checks and
subsequent media traffic from the remote peer. This way, the ICE
Lite endpoint and its network are protected from unsolicited
incoming UDP traffic, and can still operate using ICE Lite (rather
than full ICE).</t>
</section>
<section title="Mobile Network with Firewalls">
<t>Some mobile networks are also making use of a firewall to protect
their customers from various attacks like downloading malicious
content. The firewall is usually configured to block all unknown
inbound connections as explained in section 2.1 of <xref
target="I-D.chen-pcp-mobile-deployment"></xref>. As described in
<xref target="optimize"></xref>, in such cases, PCP can be used by
mobile devices to create an explicit mapping on the firewall to
permit inbound traffic and optimize the keepalive traffic. This
would result in saving of radio and power consumption of the mobile
device while protecting it from attacks.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This document has no actions for IANA.</t>
</section>
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>The security considerations in <xref target="RFC5245"></xref> and
<xref target="RFC6887"></xref> apply to this use.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>Authors would like to thank Dave Thaler, Basavaraj Patil, Anca
Zamfir, Reinaldo Penno, Suresh Kumar, Dilipan Janarthanan and Mohamed
Boucadair for their valuable inputs.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"
?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5245"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5389"?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6887'?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6263"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5626"
?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5780"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6544"?>
<?rfc ?>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3261"
?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3921"
?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2177"?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.chen-pcp-mobile-deployment'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.isomaki-rtcweb-mobile' ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile'?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4380"
?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6455"?>
<?rfc ?>
<!---->
</references>
<section anchor="example" title="Example PHP script">
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[<html>
Connected to <?PHP echo gethostname(); ?> on port <?PHP echo
getenv(SERVER_PORT)?> on <?PHP echo date("d-M-Y H:i:s");?>
Pacific Time
<p>
Your IP address is: <?PHP echo getenv(REMOTE_ADDR); ?>,
port <?PHP echo getenv(REMOTE_PORT); ?>
</p>;
</html>]]></artwork>
</figure>
</section>
<section anchor="savings" title="Savings with PCP">
<t>The following example illustrates the savings in keepalive messages
with PCP.</t>
<figure anchor="figure6" title="Savings with PCP">
<artwork><![CDATA[
PCP PCP
Client Server __________
+-----------+ +------+ / \ +-----------+
|Application|________| NAT/ |_______| Internet |___|Application|
| Client | | FW | | | | Server |
+-----------+ +------+ \__________/ +-----------+
With Application Heartbeat (without PCP):
<---------------------///--------------------------->
Application heartbeat (Max Interval = 30 seconds)
<---------------------///--------------------------->
Application heartbeat (Max Interval = 30 seconds)
<---------------------///--------------------------->
Application heartbeat (Max Interval = 30 seconds)
<---------------------///--------------------------->
Application heartbeat (Max Interval = 30 seconds)
....
....
....
....
With PCP:
<------------------>
PCP PEER request
(Max Lifetime = 3600 seconds)
....
....
<------------------>
PCP PEER request
(Max Lifetime = 3600 seconds)
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<t></t>
<t>In the example above, let's suppose normally an application would
need to send a heartbeat every 30s to keep mappings active on the
NAT/firewall device. In 24 hours, in the absence of PCP, the number of
packets sent by the application to keep those mappings active would be
(86400/30) = 2880 packets.</t>
<t>If the same application uses PCP PEER to create a mapping, with a
lifetime of 3600 seconds, on a PCP controlled NAT/firewall device, the
number of packets sent by the application to keep those mappings active
would be (86400/3600) = 24 packets.</t>
<t>With the above assumptions, using PCP saves 99.16% of keepalive
traffic. As the number of applications running on a host increase,
savings in cost of sending application heartbeats are significant with
the use of PCP.</t>
<t><figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
PCP PCP PCP
Client Proxy/ Server
Server __________
+-----------+ +------+ +------+ / \ +-----------+
|Application|_________| NAT/ |_________| NAT/ |__| Internet |___|Application|
| Client | | FW | | FW | | |
+-----------+ +------+ +------+ \__________/ +-----------+
<-multiple NAT/FW->
<------------------> <------------------>
PCP PEER request PCP PEER request
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>If there are multiple PCP-aware NAT/firewall devices on a client's
path to the internet, e.g., PCP servers at a home gateway and also at a
CGN, the savings with PCP are the same. The PCP server at the home
gateway is a PCP proxy that can create associated mappings on the PCP
server at the CGN. The client will only have to communicate with the PCP
proxy, and receives a single mapping lifetime that needs to be
refreshed.</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 14:22:36 |