One document matched: draft-williams-peer-redirect-00.xml


<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc2119 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5245 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5245.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5389 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5389.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5766 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5766.xml">
]>

<?rfc toc='yes'?>
<?rfc rfcprocack="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc colonspace='yes' ?>
<?rfc tocindent='yes' ?>

<rfc ipr="trust200902" category="std">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Peer Redirect for TURN">Peer-specific Redirection for
      Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN)</title>
    <author initials="B." surname="Williams" fullname="Brandon Williams">
      <organization abbrev="Akamai">Akamai, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>8 Cambridge Center</street>
          <city>Cambridge</city>
          <region>MA</region>
          <code>02142</code>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>brandon.williams@akamai.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <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>
    <date year="2014" />
    <abstract>
      <t>This specification describes a peer-specific redirection method that
        allows the TURN server to redirect a client for the purpose of
        improving communication with a specific peer without negatively
        affecting communication with other peers.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">

      <t>A Traversal Using Relay around NAT (TURN) <xref target="RFC5766" />
        service provider may provide multiple candidate TURN servers for use
        by a host, but it is not possible to determine which candidate TURN
        server will provide the best performance until both peers have been
        identified. In addition, the best TURN server to use for one peer may
        be different than the best TURN server to use for another peer. For
        optimum relay performance, it is desirable to select the TURN server
        based on the peer to which data is to be relayed. Consider the
        following example:</t>

      <figure>
        <artwork>
                                                          Boston
                                                          Peer C
                                      Chicago              [PC]
                                       Peer B               /
TURN Relay A                  ----------[PB]-------------[TC]
San Francisco      ----------/                       TURN Relay C
    [TA]----------/                                    New York
     |
    [PA]
   Peer A
 Los Angeles
        </artwork>
      </figure>

      <t>When Peer B wishes to communicate with either Peer A or Peer C, it
        performs a DNS lookup and discovers TURN Relay C, the nearest of the
        candidate TURN servers. Peer B then sends a TURN Allocate request to
        TURN Relay C to determine the reflexive and relay candidates to offer.
        After the reflexive candidate has been chosen, Peer B sends a
        ChannelBind request to TURN Relay C to establish a channel for
        communication with the peer. If Peer C is the remote peer, the
        existing allocation will perform reasonably well, but if Peer A is the
        remote peer, the latency for relayed packets will be nearly twice as
        long as if TURN Relay A had been selected as the relay candidate. The
        problem is worse if Peer B wishes to communicate with both Peer A and
        Peer C, since there is no single relay candidate that would provide
        optimum performance for both Peer A and Peer C.</t>
        
      <t>If TURN Relay C and TURN Relay A are part of a common TURN service,
        it would be possible for TURN Relay C to determine that TURN Relay A
        will provide optimal service for communication between Peer B and Peer
        A. This allows the TURN service to redirect just the data channel
        between Peer A and Peer B to TURN relay A, thus providing optimal
        performance for both relay channels.</t>

      <t>The Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) protocol
        <xref target="RFC5389" /> defines an ALTERNATE-SERVER mechanism with
        which a server can redirect a client to another server by replying to
        a request message with an error response with error code 300 (Try
        Alternate). The TURN protocol describes error code 300 as one of the
        possible error codes for an Allocate error response.</t>
        
      <t>This specification describes an additional use of the
        ALTERNATE-SERVER STUN attribute for TURN that allows the TURN server
        to redirect a client for the purpose of improving communication with a
        specific peer without negatively affecting communication with other
        peers. The client application indicates the nature of the desired
        response, which allows the client to treat the alternate server
        selection as either a requirement or a suggestion. This flexibility
        gives the client the option to choose the best way for the Interactive
        Connectivity Establishment (ICE) protocol <xref target="RFC5245" /> to
        respond (e.g. discarding the existing relay candidate for
        communication with this peer versus evaluating the two candidate
        servers using ICE connectivity checks and selecting the best one).</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Terminology">
      <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" />.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="mechanism" title="Peer-specific Server Redirect Mechanism">
      <t>This specification describes two new uses of the existing STUN
        ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute. In the first case, the ALTERNATE-SERVER
        attribute is included with either a CreatePermission error response or
        a ChannelBind error response. In the second case, the ALTERNATE-SERVER
        attribute is included with either a CreatePermission success response
        or a ChannelBind success response.</t>
      
      <t>This specification also defines two new comprehension-optional STUN
        attributes: CHECK-ALTERNATE and XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS. The CHECK-ALTERNATE
        attribute is used by the client to request that the server perform
        peer-specific redirection. The XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS is used by the client
        to provide an alternate peer address for location identification in
        the event that the XOR-PEER-ADDRESS attribute in the CreatePermission
        or ChannelBind request is not expected to reliably serve this
        purpose.</t>

      <section anchor="checkalt" title="Sending a CreatePermission or ChannelBind Request">
        <t>When sending a CreatePermission or a ChannelBind request, the
          CHECK-ALTERNATE STUN attribute allows a TURN client to indicate
          support for peer-specific server redirection, and the attribute's
          value indicates the expected server response type: error or
          success.</t>
        
        <t>The XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS STUN attribute allows the TURN client to
          provide an alternate peer address that can be used by the server to
          identify the network geographic location of the peer when performing
          the peer-specific redirection check. Use of this attribute is only
          necessary if the XOR-PEER-ADDRESS already contained in the
          CreatePermission or ChannelBind request does not adequately serve
          this purpose. A typical ICE protocol implementation will give higher
          candidate priority to the peer's host and reflexive addresses, which
          means that the first CreatePermission or ChannelBind request will
          provide the peer's public address as the XOR-PEER-ADDRESS value and
          no XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS attribute is necessary. However, although ICE
          recommends this priority, it does not require it, and so the first
          request may contain the peer's TURN relay address. In both cases,
          the peer's public address will be a better indication of its network
          geographic location. The XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS attribute allows the
          client to provide the peer's reflexive address in a request that
          populates the XOR-PEER-ADDRESS attribute with the peer's relay
          address.</t>
        
        <t>A client that supports peer-specific server redirection and desires
          such redirection to be performed MUST include the CHECK-ALTERNATE
          attribute in the first CreatePermission or ChannelBind request when
          that request is expected to form a new permission or binding. A
          client MUST NOT include the CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute in a
          CreatePermission or ChannelBind request that is intended to extend
          the lifetime of an existing permission or binding.</t>

        <t>Peer-specific server redirection is only supported for requests
          that include a single XOR-PEER-ADDRESS attribute. When forming a
          CreatePermission request with multiple XOR-PEER-ADDRESS attributes,
          the client MUST NOT include the CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute.</t>

        <t>When the CreatePermission or ChannelBind request includes the
          CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute, the client MAY also include an
          XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS attribute with a value appropriate for the above
          described purpose. The XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS attribute SHOULD NOT be
          included in the request if its value will be identical to the
          request's XOR-PEER-ADDRESS attribute.</t>

        <section title="The CHECK-ALTERNATE Attribute">
          <t>When forming a CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute, the STUN Type is
            TBD-CA. This type is in the comprehension-optional range, which
            means that STUN agents can safely ignore the attribute if they do
            not understand it.</t>

          <t>The CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute takes a 1-byte Value, which means
            that the Length is 1 and 3 bytes of padding are required after the
            Value. The format of the Value is:</t>

          <figure>
            <artwork>
      0
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |E|    RFFU     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            </artwork>
          </figure>

          <t>The Value contains a single 1-bit flag:
            <list style="hanging">
              <t hangText="E:">If 1, the server is requested to send a Try
                Alternate (300) error response when redirection is expected.
                If 0, the server is request to include an ALTERNATE-SERVER
                attribute in the success response for the request.</t>
            </list>
            The other 7 bits of the attribute's value must be set to zero on
            transmission and ignored on reception.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="The XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS attribute">
          <t>When forming an XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS attribute, the STUN Type is
            TBD-XOA. This type is in the comprehension-optional range, which
            means that STUN agents can safely ignore the attribute if they do
            not understand it.</t>

          <t>The XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS value specifies an address and port
            suitable for identification of the peer's network geographic
            location. It is encoded in the same way as XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS
            <xref target="RFC5389" />.</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section anchor="recvreq" title="Receiving a CreatePermission or ChannelBind Request">
        <t>When a server receives a CreatePermission or ChannelBind request
          that includes a CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute, it processes as per the
          TURN specification <xref target="RFC5766" /> plus the specific rules
          mentioned here.</t>

        <t>The server checks the following:
          <list style="symbols">
            <t>If the CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute is not recognized, ignore the
              attribute because its type indicates that it is
              comprehension-optional. This should be the existing behavior.</t>
            <t>If the message is a CreatePermission request with multiple
              XOR-PEER-ADDRESS attributes, ignore the CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute
              if present.</t>
            <t>If peer-specific redirection is not supported by the server,
              ignore the attribute.</t>
            <t>If the associated permission or binding already exists, ignore
              the attribute.</t>
          </list>
          If none of the above causes the attribute to be ignored and no
          other cause for sending an error response has been found, the server
          attempts to identify an alternate server that will provide better
          performance for the session. When an XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS attribute is
          found in the request message, the server SHOULD use this address for
          peer location identification. Otherwise, the server SHOULD use the
          address provided in the XOR-PEER-ADDRESS attribute.</t>
        
        <t>If no alternate server is identified, the server replies with a
          success response that does not include an ALTERNATE-SERVER
          attribute.</t>
        
        <t>If an alternate server is identified and the client requested an
          error response for redirection, the server rejects the request with
          a 300 (Try Alternate) error. No new permission or binding is
          generated on the server in this case.</t>
          
        <t>If an alternate server is identified and the client did not request
          an error response for redirection, the server creates the permission
          or binding. The server then replies to the request with a success
          response, including an ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute in the
          message.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="recverror" title="Receiving a CreatePermission or ChannelBind Error Response">
        <t>If the client receives a CreatePermission or ChannelBind error
          response with error code 420 (Unknown Attribute) and CHECK-ALTERNATE
          is listed in the UNKNOWN-ATTRIBUTE attribute of the message, the
          client SHOULD retransmit the original request without the
          CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute. This case is not expected due to the use
          of a comprehension-optional attribute type.</t>

        <t>If the client receives a CreatePermission or ChannelBind error
          response with error code 300 (Try Alternate), the client SHOULD
          attempt to form an allocation to the TURN server indicated in the
          ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute.</t>
          
        <t>If the alternate server responds to the Allocate request with a
          success response, the client SHOULD attempt to form a new permission
          or binding using the new allocation from the alternate server. The
          CreatePermission or ChannelBind request to the alternate server MAY
          include a CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute but SHOULD NOT request
          redirection via an error response. This helps to avoid the
          possibility of redirection loops.</t>

        <t>If the alternate server responds to the Allocate request with an
          error response, the client MAY resend the original CreatePermission
          or ChannelBind request, either without the CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute
          or with a CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute that does not request an error
          response.</t>

        <t>See <xref target="security" /> below for discussion of how the
          client should respond when receiving a Try Alternate error response
          that was not requested.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="recvsuccess" title="Receiving a CreatePermission or ChannelBind Success Response">
        <t>If the client receives a CreatePermission or ChannelBind success
          response, it proceeds with processing according to the TURN
          specification <xref target="RFC5766" />. If the message does not
          include an ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute, no additional processing is
          required.</t>

        <t>If the success response includes an ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute, the
          client SHOULD attempt to form an allocation to the TURN server
          indicated in the ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute.</t>

        <t>If the alternate server responds to the Allocate request with a
          success response, the client SHOULD attempt to form a new permission
          or binding using the new allocation from the alternate server. The
          CreatePermission or ChannelBind request to the alternate server
          MAY include a CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute with either attribute
          value. If this is done, care should be taken in the client
          implementation to recognize and avoid redirection loops.</t>
          
        <t>While waiting for the new allocation and permission or binding to
          form via the indicated alternate server, the client SHOULD use the
          original permission or binding from the request that included the
          CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute. In this way, peer-specific redirection
          without an error response can be considered a "hint" that allows the
          client to establish an alternate path and test its quality before
          switching to it.</t>

        <t>See <xref target="security" /> below for discussion of how the
          client should respond when receiving an ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute 
          that was not requested.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>This section considers attacks that are possible in a TURN deployment
        through the specified protocol extension, and discusses how they are
        mitigated by mechanisms in the protocol or recommended practices in
        the implementation.</t>

      <t>The specified mechanism affects the use of TURN CreatePermission
        request messages, ChannelBind request messages, and their respective
        success and error response messages. Each of these TURN message types
        requires the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY STUN attribute, which limits attacks
        that attempt to make use of the specified mechanism to authenticated
        clients and servers.</t>

      <section title="CHECK-ALTERNATE Flood">
        <t>A compromised TURN client could send a large number of
          CreatePermission or ChannelBind request messages, which would drive
          increased load on the TURN server. The CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute
          does not make such an attack more likely, though it could make it
          possible to increase the impact of such an attack due to the
          additional load associated with determining whether an alternate
          server should be used by the client. The TURN server MAY be
          configured to ignore the CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute under some
          conditions in order to limit the associated load. The conditions
          under which it is appropriate for a TURN server to ignore the
          CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute are implementation dependent.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Unsolicited or Invalid ALTERNATE-SERVER">
        <t>A compromised TURN server could send the "Try Alternate" error code
          in response to a request message that did not contain the
          CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute or where the value of the attribute did
          not request an error response. For client connectivity, this is no
          worse than any other error response code that could be sent. No
          matter what the error response code may be, the client is unable to
          relay data to the remote peer. The client MUST ignore the
          ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute in error responses when the
          CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute was not included in the associated
          request. The client SHOULD ignore the ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute in
          error responses when the CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute was included in
          the associated request if the attribute value did not request an
          error response. The client MAY discontinue use of the associated
          TURN allocation when an unsolicited Try Alternate error is
          received.</t>

        <t>A compromised TURN server could send an ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute
          in a success response message for a request message that did not
          contain the CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute. The client MUST ignore the
          ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute in success responses when the
          CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute was not included in the associated request
          message. The client SHOULD ignore the ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute in
          success responses when the CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute was included in
          the associated request if the attribute value requested an error
          response. The client MAY discontinue use of the associated TURN
          allocation when an unsolicited ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute is
          received.</t>

        <t>A compromised TURN server could send an invalid ALTERNATE-SERVER
          attribute value in either an error or a success response message,
          where the value refers to an unaffiliated TURN server to which the
          sending TURN server is not allowed to redirect traffic. Such an
          attack is already allowed by the use of Try Alternate errors in
          response to Allocate request messages. Use of the ALTERNATE-SERVER
          attribute in the context of peer-specific redirection does not make
          such an attack more likely, though it could make it possible to
          increase the scale of such an attack by allowing multiple
          ALTERNATE-SERVER attributes to each client, one per requested
          permission or binding. A client SHOULD ignore all future
          ALTERNATE-SERVER attributes received from the TURN server after an
          authentication failure with any server identified via an
          ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute. A client MAY discontinue use of the
          associated TURN allocation after an authentication failure with any
          server identified via an ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>[Paragraphs below in braces should be removed by the RFC Editor upon
        publication]</t>

      <t>[The CHECK-ALTERNATE attribute requires that IANA allocate a value in
        the "STUN attributes Registry" from the comprehension-optional range
        (0x8000-0xFFFF), to be replaced for TBD-CA throughout this
        document]</t>

      <t>This document defines the CHECK-ALTERNATE STUN attribute, described
        in <xref target="checkalt" />. IANA has allocated the
        comprehension-optional codepoint TBD-CA for this attribute.</t>

      <t>[The XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS attribute requires that IANA allocate a value
        in the "STUN attributes Registry" from the comprehension-optional
        range (0x8000-0xFFFF), to be replaced for TBD-XOA throughout this
        document]</t>

      <t>This document defines the XOR-OTHER-ADDRESS STUN attribute, described
        in <xref target="checkalt" />. IANA has allocated the
        comprehension-optional codepoint TBD-XOA for this attribute.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">

      &rfc2119;

    </references>
    <references title="Informative References">

      &rfc5245;
      &rfc5389;
      &rfc5766;

    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>

PAFTECH AB 2003-20262026-04-24 08:54:14