One document matched: draft-marjou-behave-app-rtp-keepalive-01.txt

Differences from draft-marjou-behave-app-rtp-keepalive-00.txt

BEHAVE Working Group                                      X. Marjou, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                            France Telecom
Intended status: Informational                          February 2, 2007
Expires: August 6, 2007


    Application Mechanism for maintaining alive the Network Address
           Translator (NAT) mappings associated to RTP flows.
                draft-marjou-behave-app-rtp-keepalive-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document defines a mechanism that enables applications using
   Real Time Protocol (RTP) to maintain their RTP Network Address
   Translator (NAT) mappings alive.







Marjou                   Expires August 6, 2007                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                RTP keepalive                February 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  List of Alternatives for Performing RTP Keepalive . . . . . . . 4
     4.1.  UDP Packet of 0-byte  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     4.2.  RTCP Packets Multiplexed with RTP Packets . . . . . . . . . 5
     4.3.  STUN Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     4.4.  RTP Packet with Comfort Noise Payload . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     4.5.  RTP Packet with No-Op Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.6.  RTP Packet with Incorrect Version Number  . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.7.  RTP Packet with Unknown Payload Type  . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Recommended Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 9
































Marjou                   Expires August 6, 2007                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                RTP keepalive                February 2007


1.  Introduction

   [Note: The content of this draft is basically a copy and paste of the
   current 7.12 section of ICE [5] concerning binding keepalives
   requirements that apply to a non ICE agent, or that apply to an ICE
   agent that communicates with a non-ICE agent.  It thus makes sense to
   extract it in a separate document so that non-ICE agents can refer to
   non-ICE specification.]

   Documents [2] and [3] describe NAT behaviors and point-out that two
   key aspects of NAT are mappings (a.k.a. bindings) and their
   refreshment.  This introduces a derived requirement for applications
   engaged in a multimedia session involving NAT traversal: they need to
   generate a minimum of flow activity in order to maintain the NAT
   mappings alive.

   When applied to applications using RTP [4], the RTP media stream
   packets themselves normally fulfill this requirement.  However, as
   described in ICE [5], there exist some cases where RTP do not
   generate a minimum flow activity.

   The examples are:
   o  Firstly, in some RTP usages, such as SIP, the media streams can be
      "put on hold".  This is accomplished by using the SDP "sendonly"
      or "inactive" attributes, as defined in RFC 3264 [6].  RFC 3264
      directs implementations to cease transmission of media in these
      cases.  However, doing so may cause NAT bindings to timeout, and
      media won't be able to come off hold.
   o  Secondly, some RTP payload formats, such as the payload format for
      text conversation [7], may send packets so infrequently that the
      interval exceeds the NAT binding timeouts.
   o  Thirdly, if silence suppression is in use, long periods of silence
      may cause media transmission to cease sufficiently long for NAT
      bindings to time out.

   This document first states the requirements that must be supported to
   perform RTP keepalives (Section 3).  In a second step, several
   alternatives are laid-out to overcome this problem (Section 4).
   Finally a single solution is recommended, in order to achieve
   interoperability (Section 5).

   The scope of the draft is limited to RTP flows.  In particular, this
   document does not address keepalive activity related to:
   o  Session signaling flows, such as the Session Initiation Protocol
      (SIP).
   o  RTCP flows.





Marjou                   Expires August 6, 2007                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                RTP keepalive                February 2007


      *  Recall that [4] recommends a minimum interval of 5 seconds and
         that "on hold" procedures of [6] do not impact RTCP
         transmissions.  Therefore, when in use, there is always some
         RTCP flow activity.
   o  Other types of flows, such as the Binary Floor Control Protocol
      (BFCP)


2.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]


3.  Requirements

   This section outlines the key requirements that the solution need to
   satisfy in order to provide RTP media keepalive.

   REQ 1.  The recommended mechanism MUST generate activity within the
   RTP media stream

   REQ 2.  The activity is generated periodically for the whole duration
   of the RTP media stream.

   REQ 3.  Any type of transport (e.g.  UDP, TCP) MUST be supported.

   REQ 4.  Any type media of stream (e.g. audio, video, text) MUST be
   supported.

   REQ 5.  Any type of payload format (e.g.  G.711, H.263) MUST be
   supported.

   REQ 6: Session signaling protocols SHOULD not be impacted.

   REQ 7: Session description protocols SHOULD not be impacted.

   REQ 8: Impacts on existing software SHOULD be minimized.

   REQ 9: Remote peer SHOULD not be impacted.

   REQ 10: One single mechanism MUST be recommended.


4.  List of Alternatives for Performing RTP Keepalive

   This section lists some alternatives that could be used in order to



Marjou                   Expires August 6, 2007                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                RTP keepalive                February 2007


   perform a keepalive message within RTP media streams.

   A common drawback of most of these alternatives is that they require
   media packets be sent by the application during "on hold" procedures,
   which violates the behavior of the inactive and recvonly attributes
   specified in SDP-NEW [10] and in RFC3264 [6].  Although there can
   exist some debate whether STUN is a media flow or not, STUN also
   requires the application to send some packets within the media stream
   during on-hold procedures.

4.1.  UDP Packet of 0-byte

   The application sends an empty UDP packet.

   Cons:
   o  This alternative is specific to UDP.
   o  There may be some implementations that will not ignore these
      packets.

4.2.  RTCP Packets Multiplexed with RTP Packets

   The application sends RTCP packets in the RTP media stream itself
   (i.e. same tuples for both RTP and RTCP packets) [8].  RTCP packets
   therefore maintain the NAT mappings open.

   Cons:
   o  Multiplexing RTP and RTCP must be supported by the remote peer.
   o  Multiplexing RTP and RTCP must be signalled in SDP offer/answer.
   o  This alternative may significantly impact existing software and
      specifications.

4.3.  STUN Packet

   The application sends a STUN Binding Request packet and receives a
   STUN Binding Response [9]

   Cons:
   o  This alternative requires that the remote endpoint support STUN.

4.4.  RTP Packet with Comfort Noise Payload

   The application sends a RTP packet with a comfort-noise payload [11].

   Cons:
   o  This alternative is limited to voice payload formats only.
   o  For each payload type, the content of the payload needs to be
      specified.




Marjou                   Expires August 6, 2007                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                RTP keepalive                February 2007


4.5.  RTP Packet with No-Op Payload

   The application sends a RTP No-OP payload [12] .

   Cons:
   o  This payload type needs to be supported by the remote peer.
   o  This payload type needs to be signalled in SDP offer/answer.

4.6.  RTP Packet with Incorrect Version Number

   The application sends a RTP with an incorrect version number.

   Based on RTP specification [4], the peer should perform a header
   validity check, and therefore ignore these types of packet.

   Cons:
   o  Only four version numbers are possible.  Using one of them for RTP
      keepalive would be wasteful.

4.7.  RTP Packet with Unknown Payload Type

   The application sends a RTP packet with an unknown payload type.

   Normally the peer will ignore it, as RTP [4] states that "a receiver
   MUST ignore packets with payload types that it does not understand".

   For example, the keepalive RTP packets contain a dynamic payload type
   that has not been negotiated for the session.

   [Note: more details on the selection of the payload type are needed
   here.]

   Cons:
   o  None


5.  Recommended Solution

   An application supporting this specification MUST send keepalive
   packets under the form of ...  [Note: The recommended solution needs
   to be discussed.  However recommending a single method among the
   alternatives of the previous section is the best in term of
   interoperability.  Proposal is the alternative of Section 4.7]

   Keepalives packets MUST be sent for each RTP stream regardless of
   whether the media stream is currently inactive, sendonly, recvonly or
   sendrecv.




Marjou                   Expires August 6, 2007                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                RTP keepalive                February 2007


   Keepalives packets within a particular RTP media stream MUST use the
   tuple (source IP address, source TCP/UDP ports, target IP address,
   target TCP/UDP Port) of the regular RTP packets."

   Keepalive packets MUST be sent every Tr seconds.  Tr SHOULD be
   configurable, and otherwise MUST default to 15 seconds.  [Note: same
   value as in [5].]

   An application starts sending keepalives packet as soon as the first
   regular RTP packet of the media stream has been sent.  It ceases
   sending these keepalives packet when the media stream is disabled, or
   when the communication terminates.


6.  Security Considerations

   T.B.D.


7.  Acknowledgements

   Jonathan Rosenberg, via the ICE specification, provided the major
   inputs for this draft.  In addition, thanks to the following folks
   for useful inputs and comments: Dan Wing, and Aurelien Sollaud.


8.  References

   [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]   Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation (NAT)
         Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", RFC 4787,
         January 2007.

   [3]   Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Francis, P., Sivarkumar, S.,
         and P. Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP",
         draft-ietf-behave-tcp-04 (work in progress), January 2007.

   [4]   Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
         "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
         RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [5]   Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A
         Methodology for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
         Offer/Answer Protocols", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-13 (work in
         progress), January 2007.




Marjou                   Expires August 6, 2007                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                RTP keepalive                February 2007


   [6]   Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
         the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.

   [7]   Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text
         Conversation", RFC 4103, June 2005.

   [8]   Perkins, C. and M. Magnus, "Multiplexing RTP Data and Control
         Packets on a Single Port", draft-ietf-avt-rtp-and-rtcp-mux-03
         (work in progress), December 2006.

   [9]   Rosenberg, J., Huitema, C., Mahy, R., and D. Wing, "Simple
         Traversal Underneath Network Address Translators (NAT) (STUN)",
         draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-05 (work in progress),
         October 2006.

   [10]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
         Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [11]  Robert, R., "Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for
         Comfort Noise (CN)", RFC 3389, September 2002.

   [12]  Andreason, F., Oran, D., and D. Wing, "A No-Op Payload Format
         for RTP", draft-ietf-avt-rtp-no-op-00 (work in progress),
         May 2005.


Author's Address

   Xavier Marjou (editor)
   France Telecom
   2, hent Pierre Marzin
   Lannion, Brittany  22307
   France

   Email: xavier.marjou@orange-ftgroup.com
















Marjou                   Expires August 6, 2007                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                RTP keepalive                February 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Marjou                   Expires August 6, 2007                 [Page 9]