[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-ietf-behave-nat) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 4787

BEHAVE                                                     F. Audet, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           Nortel Networks
Expires: March 10, 2006                                      C. Jennings
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                       September 6, 2005


              NAT Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP
                      draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp-04

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 March 10, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document defines basic terminology for describing different
   types of NAT behavior when handling Unicast UDP and also defines a
   set of requirements that would allow many applications, such as
   multimedia communications or on-line gaming, to work consistently.
   Developing NATs that meet this set of requirements will greatly
   increase the likelihood that these applications will function
   properly.



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


Table of Contents

   1.  Applicability Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Network Address and Port Translation Behavior  . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Address and Port Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.2.  Port Assignment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.1.  Port Assignment Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.2.  Port Parity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.3.  Port Contiguity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  Mapping Refresh  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.4.  Conflicting Internal and External IP Address Spaces  . . . 12
   5.  Filtering Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  Hairpinning Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  Application Level Gateways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  Deterministic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   9.  ICMP Destination Unreachable Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   10. Fragmentation of Outgoing Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     10.1. Smaller Adjacent MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     10.2. Smaller Network MTU  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   11. Receiving Fragmented Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   12. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   13. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   14. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   15. IAB Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   16. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     17.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 28



















Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


1.  Applicability Statement

   The purpose of this specification is to define a set of requirements
   for NATs that would allow many applications, such as multimedia
   communications or on-line gaming, to work consistently.  Developing
   NATs that meet this set of requirements will greatly increase the
   likelihood that these applications will function properly.

   The requirements of this specification apply to Traditional NATs as
   described in RFC 2663 [8].

   This document is meant to cover NATs of any size, from small
   residential NATs to large Enterprise NATs.  However, it should be
   understood that Enterprise NATs normally provide much more than just
   NAT capabilities: for example, they typically provide firewall
   functionalities.  Firewalls are specifically out-of-scope for this
   specification; however, this specification does cover the inherent
   filtering aspects of NATs.

   Approaches using directly signaled control of middle boxes such as
   Midcom, UPnP, or in-path signaling are out of scope.

   UDP Relays are out-of-scope.

   Application aspects are out-of-scope, as the focus here is strictly
   on the NAT itself.

   This document only covers the UDP Unicast aspects of NAT traversal
   and does not cover TCP, IPSEC, or other protocols.  Since the
   document is for UDP only, packet inspection above the UDP layer
   (including RTP) is also out-of-scope.


2.  Introduction

   Network Address Translators (NATs) are well known to cause very
   significant problems with applications that carry IP addresses in the
   payload RFC 3027 [10].  Applications that suffer from this problem
   include Voice Over IP and Multimedia Over IP (e.g., SIP [12] and
   H.323 [20]), as well as online gaming.

   Many techniques are used to attempt to make realtime multimedia
   applications, online games, and other applications work across NATs.
   Application Level Gateways [8] are one such mechanism.  STUN [17]
   describes a UNilateral Self-Address Translation (UNSAF) mechanism
   [15].  UDP Relays have also been used to enable applications across
   NATs, but these are generally seen as a solution of last resort.  ICE
   [18] describes a methodology for using many of these techniques and



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   avoiding a UDP Relay unless the type of NAT is such that it forces
   the use of such a UDP Relay.  This specification defines requirements
   for improving NATs.  Meeting these requirements ensures that
   applications will not be forced to use UDP media relay.

   As pointed out in UNSAF [15], "From observations of deployed
   networks, it is clear that different NAT box implementations vary
   widely in terms of how they handle different traffic and addressing
   cases."  This wide degree of variability is one factor in the overall
   brittleness introduced by NATs and makes it extremely difficult to
   predict how any given protocol will behave on a network traversing
   NAT.  Discussions with many of the major NAT vendors have made it
   clear that they would prefer to deploy NATs that were deterministic
   and caused the least harm to applications while still meeting the
   requirements that caused their customers to deploy NATs in the first
   place.  The problem NAT vendors face is that they are not sure how
   best to do that or how to document how their NATs behave.

   The goals of this document are to define a set of common terminology
   for describing the behavior of NATs and to produce a set of
   requirements on a specific set of behaviors for NATs.  The
   requirements represent what many vendors are already doing, and it is
   not expected that it should be any more difficult to build a NAT that
   meets these requirements or that these requirements should affect
   performance.

   This document forms a common set of requirements that are simple and
   useful for voice, video, and games, which can be implemented by NAT
   vendors.  This document will simplify the analysis of protocols for
   deciding whether or not they work in this environment and will allow
   providers of services that have NAT traversal issues to make
   statements about where their applications will work and where they
   will not, as well as to specify their own NAT requirements.


3.  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 [1].

   Readers are urged to refer to RFC 2263 [8] for information on NAT
   taxonomy and terminology.  Traditional NAT is the most common type of
   NAT device deployed.  Readers may refer to RFC 3022 [9] for detailed
   information on traditional NAT.  Traditional NAT has two main
   varieties - Basic NAT and Network Address/Port Translator (NAPT).

   NAPT is by far the most commonly deployed NAT device.  NAPT allows



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   multiple internal hosts to share a single public IP address
   simultaneously.  When an internal host opens an outgoing TCP or UDP
   session through a NAPT, the NAPT assigns the session a public IP
   address and port number, so that subsequent response packets from the
   external endpoint can be received by the NAPT, translated, and
   forwarded to the internal host.  The effect is that the NAPT
   establishes a NAT session to translate the (private IP address,
   private port number) tuple to (public IP address, public port number)
   tuple and vice versa for the duration of the session.  An issue of
   relevance to peer-to-peer applications is how the NAT behaves when an
   internal host initiates multiple simultaneous sessions from a single
   (private IP, private port) endpoint to multiple distinct endpoints on
   the external network.  In this specification, the term "NAT" refers
   to both "Basic NAT" and "Network Address/Port Translator (NAPT)".

   This document uses the term "session" as defined in RFC 2663: "TCP/
   UDP sessions are uniquely identified by the tuple of (source IP
   address, source TCP/UDP ports, target IP address, target TCP/UDP
   Port)."

   This document uses the term "address and port mapping" as the
   translation between an external address and port and an internal
   address and port.  Note that this is not the same as an "address
   binding" as defined in RFC 2663.

   RFC 3489 [8] used the terms "Full Cone", "Restricted Cone", "Port
   Restricted Cone" and "Symmetric" to refer to different variations of
   NATs applicable to UDP only.  Unfortunately, this terminology has
   been the source of much confusion as it has proven inadequate at
   describing real-life NAT behavior.  This specification therefore
   refers to specific individual NAT behaviors instead of using the
   Cone/Symmetric terminology.


4.  Network Address and Port Translation Behavior

   This section describes the various NAT behaviors applicable to NATs.

4.1.  Address and Port Mapping

   When an internal endpoint opens an outgoing session through a NAT,
   the NAT assigns the session an external IP address and port number so
   that subsequent response packets from the external endpoint can be
   received by the NAT, translated, and forwarded to the internal
   endpoint.  This is a mapping between an internal IP address and port
   IP:port and external IP:port tuple.  It establishes the translation
   that will be performed by the NAT for the duration of the session.
   For many applications, it is important to distinguish the behavior of



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   the NAT when there are multiple simultaneous sessions established to
   different external endpoints.

   The key behavior to describe is the criteria for re-use of a mapping
   for new sessions to external endpoints, after establishing a first
   mapping between an internal X:x address and port and an external
   Y1:y1 address tuple.  Let's assume that the internal IP address and
   port X:x is mapped to X1':x1' for this first session.  The endpoint
   then sends from X:x to an external address Y2:y2 and gets a mapping
   of X2':x2' on the NAT.  The relationship between X1':x1' and X2':x2'
   for various combinations of the relationship between Y1:y1 and Y2:y2
   is critical for describing the NAT behavior.  This arrangement is
   illustrated in the following diagram:

                                      E
   +------+                 +------+  x
   |  Y1  |                 |  Y2  |  t
   +--+---+                 +---+--+  e
      | Y1:y1            Y2:y2  |     r
      +----------+   +----------+     n
                 |   |                a
         X1':x1' |   | X2':x2'        l
              +--+---+-+
   ...........|   NAT  |...............
              +--+---+-+              I
                 |   |                n
             X:x |   | X:x            t
                ++---++               e
                |  X  |               r
                +-----+               n
                                      a
                                      l

   The following address and port mapping behavior are defined:

      Endpoint Independent Mapping:
         The NAT reuses the port mapping for subsequent packets sent
         from the same internal IP address and port (X:x) to any
         external IP address and port.  Specifically, X1':x1' equals
         X2':x2' for all values of Y2:y2.

      Address Dependent Mapping:
         The NAT reuses the port mapping for subsequent packets sent
         from the same internal IP address and port (X:x) to the same
         external IP address, regardless of the external port.
         Specifically, X1':x1' equals X2':x2' if, and only if, Y2 equals
         Y1.




Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005



      Address and Port Dependent Mapping:
         The NAT reuses the port mapping for subsequent packets sent
         from the same internal IP address and port (X:x) to the same
         external and port while the mapping is still active.
         Specifically, X1':x1' equals X2':x2' if, and only if, Y2:y2
         equals Y1:y1.

   It is important to note that these three possible choices make no
   difference to the security properties of the NAT.  The security
   properties are fully determined by which packets the NAT allows in
   and which it does not.  This is determined by the filtering behavior
   in the filtering portions of the NAT.

   REQ-1: A NAT MUST have an "External NAT mapping is endpoint
      independent" behavior.

   Justification: In order for UNSAF methods to work, REQ-1 needs to be
      met.  Failure to meet REQ-1 will force the use of a Media Relay
      which is very often impractical.

   Some NATs are capable of assigning IP addresses from a pool of IP
   addresses on the external side of the NAT, as opposed to just a
   single IP address.  This is especially common with larger NATs.  Some
   NATs use the external IP address mapping in an arbitrary fashion
   (i.e. randomly): one internal IP address could have multiple external
   IP address mappings active at the same time for different sessions.
   These NATs have an "IP address pooling" behavior of "Arbitrary".
   Some large Enterprise NATs use an IP address pooling behavior of
   "Arbitrary" as a means of hiding the IP address assigned to specific
   endpoints by making their assignment less predictable.  Other NATs
   use the same external IP address mapping for all sessions associated
   with the same internal IP address.  These NATs have an "IP address
   pooling" behavior of "Paired."  NATs that use an "IP address pooling"
   behavior of "arbitrary" can cause issues for applications that use
   multiple ports from the same endpoint but do not negotiate IP
   addresses individually (e.g., some applications using RTP and RTCP).

   REQ-2: It is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "IP address pooling"
      behavior of "Paired".  Note that this requirement is not
      applicable to NATs that do not support IP address pooling.

   Justification: This will allow applications that use multiple ports
      originating from the same internal IP address to also have the
      same external IP address.  This is to avoid breaking peer-to-peer
      applications that are not capable of negotiating the IP address
      for RTP and the IP address for RTCP separately.  As such it is
      envisioned that this requirement will become less important as



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


      applications become NAT-friendlier with time.  The main reason why
      this requirement is here is that in a peer-to-peer application,
      you are subject to the other peer's mistake.  In particular, in
      the context of SIP, if my application supports the extensions
      defined in RFC 3605 [16] for indicating RTP and RTCP addresses and
      ports separately, but the other peer does not, there may still be
      breakage in the form of the stream losing RTP packets.  This
      requirement will avoid the loss of RTP in this context, although
      the loss of RTCP may be inevitable in this particular example.  It
      is also worth noting that RFC 3605 is unfortunately not a
      mandatory part of SIP (RFC 3261).  This requirement will therefore
      address a particularly nasty problem that will prevail for a
      significant period of time.

4.2.  Port Assignment

4.2.1.  Port Assignment Behavior

   This section uses the following diagram for reference.

                                      E
   +-------+               +-------+  x
   |  Y1   |               |  Y2   |  t
   +---+---+               +---+---+  e
       | Y1:y1          Y2:y2  |      r
       +---------+   +---------+      n
                 |   |                a
         X1':x1' |   | X2':x2'        l
              +--+---+--+
   ...........|   NAT   |...............
              +--+---+--+             I
                 |   |                n
       +---------+   +---------+      t
       | X1:x1          X2':x2 |      e
   +---+---+               +---+---+  r
   |  X1   |               |  X2   |  n
   +-------+               +-------+  a
                                      l

   Some NATs attempt to preserve the port number used internally when
   assigning a mapping to an external IP address and port (e.g.,
   x=x1=x2=x1'=x2', or more succinctly, a mapping of X:x to X':x).  A
   basic NAT, for example, will preserve the same port and will assign a
   different IP address from a pool of external IP addresses in case of
   port collision (e.g.  X1:x to X1':x and X2:x to X2':x).  This is only
   possible as long as the NAT has enough external IP addresses.  If the
   port x is already in use on all available external IP addresses, then
   the NAT needs to switch from Basic NAT to Network Address and Port



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   Translator (NAPT) mode (i.e., X'=X1'=X2' and x=x1=x2 but x1'!=x2', or
   a mapping of X1:x to X':x1' and X2:x to X':x2').  This port
   assignment behavior is referred to as "port preservation".  It does
   not guarantee that the external port x' will always be the same as
   the internal port x but only that the NAT will preserve the port if
   possible.

   A NAT that does not attempt to make the external port numbers match
   the internal port numbers in any case (i.e., X1:x to X':x1', X2:x to
   X':x2') is referred to as "No port preservation".

   Some NATs use "Port overloading", i.e. they always use port
   preservation even in the case of collision (i.e., X'=X1'=X2' and
   x=x1=x2=x1'=x2', or a mapping of X1:x to X':x, and X2:x to X':x).
   These NATs rely on the source of the response from the external
   endpoint (Y1:y1, Y2:y2) to forward a packet to the proper internal
   endpoint (X1 or X2).  Port overloading fails if the two internal
   endpoints are establishing sessions to the same external destination.

   Most applications fail in some cases with "Port overloading".  It is
   clear that "Port overloading" behavior will result in many problems.
   For example it will fail if two internal endpoints try to reach the
   same external destination, e.g., a server used by both endpoints such
   as a SIP proxy, or a web server, etc.

   When NATs do allocate a new source port, there is the issue of which
   IANA-defined range of port to choose.  The ranges are "well-known"
   from 0 to 1023, "registered" from 1024 to 49151, and "dynamic/
   private" from 49152 through 65535.  For most protocols, these are
   destination ports and not source ports, so mapping a source port to a
   source port that is already registered is unlikely to have any bad
   effects.  Some NATs may choose to use only the ports in the dynamic
   range; the only down side of this practice is that it limits the
   number of ports available.  Other NAT devices may use everything but
   the well-known range and may prefer to use the dynamic range first or
   possibly avoid the actual registered ports in the registered range.
   Other NATs preserve the port range if it is in the well-known range.
   It should be noted that port 0 is reserved and must not be used.

   REQ-3: A NAT MUST NOT have a "Port assignment" behavior of "Port
      overloading".
      a) If the host's source port was in the range 1-1023, it is
         RECOMMENDED the NAT's source port be in the same range.  If the
         host's source port was in the range 1024-65535, it is
         RECOMMENDED that the NAT's source port be in that range.






Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   Justification: This requirement must be met in order to enable two
      applications on the internal side of the NAT both to use the same
      port to try to communicate with the same destination.  NATs that
      implement port preservation have to deal with conflicts on ports,
      and the multiple code paths this introduces often result in
      nondeterministic behavior.  However, it should be understood that
      when a port is randomly assigned, it may just randomly happen to
      be assigned the same port.  Applications must therefore be able to
      deal with both port preservation and no port preservation.
      a) Certain applications expect the source UDP port to be in the
         well-known range.  See RFC 2623 for an example.

4.2.2.  Port Parity

   Some NATs preserve the parity of the UDP port, i.e., an even port
   will be mapped to an even port, and an odd port will be mapped to an
   odd port.  This behavior respects the RFC 3550 [14] rule that RTP use
   even ports, and RTCP use odd ports.  RFC 3550 allows any port numbers
   to be used for RTP and RTCP if the two numbers are specified
   separately, for example using RFC 3605 [16].  However, some
   implementations do not include RFC 3605 and do not recognize when the
   peer has specified the RTCP port separately using RFC 3605.  If such
   an implementation receives an odd RTP port number from the peer
   (perhaps after having been translated by a NAT), and then follows the
   RFC 3550 rule to change the RTP port to the next lower even number,
   this would obviously result in the loss of RTP.  NAT-friendly
   application aspects are outside the scope of this document.  It is
   expected that this issue will fade away with time, as implementations
   improve.  Preserving the port parity allows for supporting
   communication with peers that do not support explicit specification
   of both RTP and RTCP port numbers.

   REQ-4: It is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have a "Port parity preservation"
      behavior of "Yes".

   Justification: This is to avoid breaking peer-to-peer applications
      which do not explicitly and separately specify RTP and RTCP port
      numbers and which follow the RFC 3550 rule to decrement an odd RTP
      port to make it even.  The same considerations as per the IP
      address pooling requirement apply.

4.2.3.  Port Contiguity

   Some NATs attempt to preserve the port contiguity rule of RTCP=RTP+1.
   These NATs do things like sequential assignment or port reservation.
   Sequential port assignment assumes that the application will open a
   mapping for RTP first and then open a mapping for RTCP.  It is not
   practical to enforce this requirement on all applications.



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   Furthermore, there is a glaring problem if many applications (or
   endpoints) are trying to open mapping simultaneously.  Port
   preservation is also problematic since it is wasteful, especially
   considering that a NAT cannot reliably distinguish between RTP over
   UDP and other UDP packets where there is no contiguity rule.  For
   those reasons, it would be too complex to attempt to preserve the
   contiguity rule by suggesting specific NAT behavior, and it would
   certainly break the deterministic behavior rule.

   In order to support both RTP and RTCP, it will therefore be necessary
   that applications follow rules to negotiate RTP and RTCP separately,
   and account for the very real possibility that the RTCP=RTP+1 rule
   will be broken.  As this is an application requirement, it is outside
   of the scope of this document.

4.3.  Mapping Refresh

   NAT mapping timeout implementations vary but include the timer's
   value and the way the mapping timer is refreshed to keep the mapping
   alive.

   The mapping timer is defined as the time a mapping will stay active
   without packets traversing the NAT.  There is great variation in the
   values used by different NATs.

   REQ-5: A NAT UDP mapping timer MUST NOT expire in less than 2
      minutes.
      a) The value of the NAT UDP mapping timer MAY be configurable.
      b) A default value of 5 minutes for the NAT UDP mapping timer is
         RECOMMENDED.

   Justification: This requirement is to ensure that the timeout is long
      enough to avoid too frequent timer refresh packets.
      a) Configuration is desirable for adapting to specific networks
         and troubleshooting.
      b) This default is to avoid too frequent timer refresh packets.

   Some NATs keep the mapping active (i.e., refresh the timer value)
   when a packet goes from the internal side of the NAT to the external
   side of the NAT.  This is referred to as having a NAT Outbound
   refresh behavior of "True".

   Some NATs keep the mapping active when a packet goes from the
   external side of the NAT to the internal side of the NAT.  This is
   referred to as having a NAT Inbound Refresh Behavior of "True".

   Some NATs keep the mapping active on both, in which case both
   properties are "True".



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   REQ-6: The NAT mapping Refresh Direction MUST have a "NAT Outbound
      refresh behavior" of "True".
      a) The NAT mapping Refresh Direction MAY have a "NAT Inbound
         refresh behavior" of "True".

   Justification: Outbound refresh is necessary for allowing the client
      to keep the mapping alive.
      a) Inbound refresh may be useful for applications with no outgoing
         UDP traffic.  However, allowing inbound refresh may allow an
         application to keep a mapping alive indefinitely.  This may be
         a security risk.  Also, if the process is repeated with
         different ports, over time it could use up all the ports on the
         NAT.

4.4.  Conflicting Internal and External IP Address Spaces

   Many NATs, particularly consumer-level devices designed to be
   deployed by nontechnical users, routinely obtain their external IP
   address, default router, and other IP configuration information for
   their external interface dynamically from an external network such as
   an upstream ISP.  The NAT in turn automatically sets up its own
   internal subnet in one of the private IP address spaces assigned to
   this purpose in RFC 1918 [7], typically providing dynamic IP
   configuration services for hosts on this internal network.

   Auto-configuration of NATs and private networks can be problematic,
   however, if the NAT's external network is also in RFC 1918 private
   address space.  In a common scenario, an ISP places its customers
   behind a NAT and hands out private RFC 1918 addresses to them.  Some
   of these customers in turn deploy consumer-level NATs, which in
   effect act as "second-level" NATs, multiplexing their own private RFC
   1918 IP subnets onto the single RFC 1918 IP address provided by the
   ISP.  There is no inherent guarantee in this case that the ISP's
   "intermediate" privately-addressed network and the customer's
   internal privately-addressed network will not use numerically
   identical or overlapping RFC 1918 IP subnets.  Customers of consumer-
   level NATs further cannot be expected to have the technical knowledge
   to prevent this scenario from occurring by manually configuring their
   internal network with non-conflicting RFC 1918 subnets.

   NAT vendors need to design their NATs to ensure that they function
   correctly and robustly even in such problematic scenarios.  One
   possible solution is for the NAT to ensure that whenever its external
   link is configured with an RFC 1918 private IP address, the NAT
   automatically selects a different, non-conflicting RFC 1918 IP subnet
   for its internal network.  A disadvantage of this solution is that if
   the NAT's external interface is dynamically configured or re-
   configured after its internal network is already in use, then the NAT



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   may have to renumber its entire internal network dynamically if it
   detects a conflict.

   An alternative solution is for the NAT to be designed so that it can
   translate and forward traffic correctly even when its external and
   internal interfaces are configured with numerically overlapping IP
   subnets.  In this scenario, for example, if the NAT's external
   interface has been assigned an IP address P in RFC 1918 space, then
   there might also be an internal node I having the same RFC 1918
   private IP address P. An IP packet with destination address P on the
   external network is directed at the NAT, whereas an IP packet with
   the same destination address P on the internal network is directed at
   node I. The NAT therefore needs to maintain a clear operational
   distinction between "external IP addresses" and "internal IP
   addresses" to avoid confusing internal node I with its own external
   interface.  In general, the NAT needs to allow all internal nodes
   (including I) to communicate with all external nodes having public
   (non-RFC 1918) IP addresses or having private IP addresses that do
   not conflict with the addresses used by its internal network.

   REQ-7: A NAT device whose external IP interface can be configured
      dynamically MUST either (1) automatically ensure that its internal
      network uses IP addresses that do not conflict with its external
      network, or (2) be able to translate and forward traffic between
      all internal nodes and all external nodes whose IP addresses do
      not numerically conflict with the internal network.

   Justification: If a NAT's external and internal interfaces are
      configured with overlapping IP subnets, then there is of course no
      way for an internal host with RFC 1918 IP address Q to initiate a
      direct communication session to an external node having the same
      RFC 1918 address Q, or to other external nodes with IP addresses
      that numerically conflict with the internal subnet.  Such nodes
      can still open communication sessions indirectly via NAT traversal
      techniques, however, with the help of a third-party server such as
      a STUN server having a public, non-RFC 1918 IP address.  In this
      case, nodes with conflicting private RFC 1918 addresses on
      opposite sides of the second-level NAT can communicate with each
      other via their respective temporary public endpoints on the main
      Internet, as long as their common first-level NAT (e.g., the
      upstream ISP's NAT) supports hairpinning behavior as described in
      Section 6.


5.  Filtering Behavior

   This section describes various filtering behaviors observed in NATs.




Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   When an internal endpoint opens an outgoing session through a NAT,
   the NAT assigns a filtering rule for the mapping between an internal
   IP:port (X:x) and external IP:port (Y:y) tuple.

   The key behavior to describe is what criteria are used by the NAT to
   filter packets originating from specific external endpoints.

      Endpoint Independent Filtering:
         The NAT filters out only packets not destined to the internal
         address and port X:x, regardless of the external IP address and
         port source (Z:z).  The NAT forwards any packets destined to
         X:x.  In other words, sending packets from the internal side of
         the NAT to any external IP address is sufficient to allow any
         packets back to the internal endpoint.

      Address Dependent Filtering:
         The NAT filters out packets not destined to the internal
         address X:x.  Additionally, the NAT will filter out packets
         from Y:y destined for the internal endpoint X:x if X:x has not
         sent packets to Y:any previously (independently of the port
         used by Y).  In other words, for receiving packets from a
         specific external endpoint, it is necessary for the internal
         endpoint to send packets first to that specific external
         endpoint's IP address.

      Address and Port Dependent Filtering:
         This is similar to the previous behavior, except that the
         external port is also relevant.  The NAT filters out packets
         not destined for the internal address X:x.  Additionally, the
         NAT will filter out packets from Y:y destined for the internal
         endpoint X:x if X:x has not sent packets to Y:y previously.  In
         other words, for receiving packets from a specific external
         endpoint, it is necessary for the internal endpoint to send
         packets first to that external endpoint's IP address and port.

   REQ-8: If application transparency is most important, it is
      RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "Endpoint independent filtering"
      behavior.  If a more stringent filtering behavior is most
      important, it is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "Address dependent
      filtering" behavior.
      a) The filtering behavior MAY be an option configurable by the
         administrator of the NAT.









Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   Justification: The recommendation to use Endpoint Independent
      Filtering is aimed at maximizing application transparency, in
      particular for applications that receive media simultaneously from
      multiple locations (e.g., gaming), or applications that use
      rendezvous techniques.  However, it is also possible that in some
      circumstances, it may be preferable to have a more stringent
      filtering behavior.  Filtering independently of the external
      endpoint is not as secure: an unauthorized packet could get
      through a specific port while the port was kept open if it was
      lucky enough to find the port open.  In theory, filtering based on
      both IP address and port is more secure than filtering based only
      on the IP address (because the external endpoint could in reality
      be two endpoints behind another NAT, where one of the two
      endpoints is an attacker): however, such a policy could interfere
      with applications that expect to receive UDP packets on more than
      one UDP port.  Using Endpoint Independent Filtering or Address
      Dependent Filtering instead of Address and Port Dependent
      Filtering on a NAT (say NAT-A) also has benefits when the other
      endpoint is behind a non-BEHAVE compliant NAT (say NAT-B) that
      does not support REQ-1.  When the endpoints use ICE, if NAT-A uses
      Address and Port Dependent Filtering, connectivity will require a
      Media Relay.  However, if NAT-A uses Endpoint Independent
      Filtering or Address Dependent Filtering, ICE will ultimately find
      connectivity without requiring a Media Relay.  Having the
      filtering behavior being an option configurable by the
      administrator of the NAT ensures that a NAT can be used in the
      widest variety of deployment scenarios.


6.  Hairpinning Behavior

   If two hosts (called X1 and X2) are behind the same NAT and
   exchanging traffic, the NAT may allocate an address on the outside of
   the NAT for X2, called X2':x2'.  If X1 sends traffic to X2':x2', it
   goes to the NAT, which must relay the traffic from X1 to X2.  This is
   referred to as hairpinning and is illustrated below.















Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


     NAT
   +----+ from X1:x1 to X2':x2'   +-----+ X1':x1'
   | X1 |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>--+---
   +----+                         |  v  |
                                  |  v  |
                                  |  v  |
                                  |  v  |
   +----+ from X1':x1' to X2:x2   |  v  | X2':x2'
   | X2 |<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--+---
   +----+                         +-----+

   Hairpinning allows two endpoints on the internal side of the NAT to
   communicate even if they only use each other's external IP addresses
   and ports.

   More formally, a NAT that supports hairpinning forwards packets
   originating from an internal address, X1:x1, destined for an external
   address X2':x2' that has an active mapping to an internal address
   X2:x2, back to that internal address X2:x2.  Note that typically X1'
   is the same as X2'.

   Furthermore, the NAT may present the hairpinned packet with either an
   internal or an external source IP address and port.  The hairpinning
   NAT behavior can therefore be either "External source IP address and
   port" or "Internal source IP address and port".  "Internal source IP
   address and port" may cause problems by confusing implementations
   that expect an external IP address and port.

   REQ-9: A NAT MUST support "Hairpinning".
      a) A NAT Hairpinning behavior MUST be "External source IP address
         and port".

   Justification: This requirement is to allow communications between
      two endpoints behind the same NAT when they are trying each
      other's external IP addresses.
      a) Using the external IP address is necessary for applications
         with a restrictive policy of not accepting packets from IP
         addresses that differ from what is expected.


7.  Application Level Gateways

   Certain NATs have implemented Application Level Gateways (ALGs) for
   various protocols, including protocols for negotiating peer-to-peer
   sessions such as SIP.

   Certain NATs have these ALGs turned on permanently, others have them
   turned on by default but let them be be turned off, and others have



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   them turned off by default but let them be turned on.

   NAT ALGs may interfere with UNSAF methods or protocols that try to be
   NAT-aware and must therefore be used with extreme caution.

   REQ-10: If a NAT includes ALGs that affect UDP, it is RECOMMENDED
      that all of those ALGs be disabled by default.
      a) If a NAT includes ALGs, it is RECOMMENDED that the NAT allow
         the NAT administrator to enable or disable each ALG separately.

   Justification: NAT ALGs may interfere with UNSAF methods.
      a) This requirement allows the user to enable those ALGs that are
         necessary to aid in the operation of some applications without
         enabling ALGs which interfere with the operation of other
         applications.


8.  Deterministic Properties

   The classification of NATs is further complicated by the fact that
   under some conditions the same NAT will exhibit different behaviors.
   This has been seen on NATs that preserve ports or have specific
   algorithms for selecting a port other than a free one.  If the
   external port that the NAT wishes to use is already in use by another
   session, the NAT must select a different port.  This results in
   different code paths for this conflict case, which results in
   different behavior.

   For example, if three hosts X1, X2, and X3 all send from the same
   port x, through a port preserving NAT with only one external IP
   address, called X1', the first one to send (i.e., X1) will get an
   external port of x but the next two will get x2' and x3' (where these
   are not equal to x).  There are NATs where the External NAT mapping
   characteristics and the External Filter characteristics change
   between the X1:x and the X2:x mapping.  To make matters worse, there
   are NATs where the behavior may be the same on the X1:x and X2:x
   mappings but different on the third X3:x mapping.

   Some NATs that try to reuse external ports flow from two internal IP
   addresses to two different external IP addresses.  For example, X1:x
   is going to Y1:y1 and X2:x is going to Y2:y2, where Y1:y1 does not
   equal Y2:y2.  Some NATs will map X1:x to X1':x and will also map X2:x
   to X1':x.  This works if the NAT mapping is address port dependent.
   However some NATs change their behavior when this type of port reuse
   is happening.  The NAT may look like it has NAT mappings that are
   independent when this type of reuse is not happening but may change
   to Address Port Dependent when this reuse happens.




Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   Any NAT that changes the NAT mapping or the External Filtering
   without configuration changes, at any point in time under any
   particular conditions is referred to as a "non-deterministic" NAT.
   NATs that don't are called "deterministic".

   Non-deterministic NATs generally change behavior when a conflict of
   some sort happens, i.e. when the port that would normally be used is
   already in use by another mapping.  The NAT mapping and External
   Filtering in the absence of conflict is referred to as the Primary
   behavior.  The behavior after the first conflict is referred to as
   Secondary and after the second conflict is referred to as Tertiary.
   No NATs have been observed that change on further conflicts but it is
   certainly possible that they exist.

   REQ-11: A NAT MUST have deterministic behavior, i.e., it MUST NOT
      change the NAT mapping or the External Filtering Behavior at any
      point in time or under any particular conditions.

   Justification: Non-deterministic NATs are very difficult to
      troubleshoot because they require more intensive testing.  This
      non-deterministic behavior is the root cause of much of the
      uncertainty that NATs introduce about whether or not applications
      will work.


9.  ICMP Destination Unreachable Behavior

   When a NAT sends a packet towards a host on the other side of the
   NAT, an ICMP message may be sent in response to that packet.  That
   ICMP message may be sent by the destination host or by any router
   along the network path.  The NAT's default configuration SHOULD NOT
   filter ICMP messages based on their source IP address.  Such ICMP
   messages SHOULD be rewritten by the NAT (specifically the IP headers
   and the ICMP payload) and forwarded to the appropriate internal or
   external host.  The NAT needs to perform this function for as long as
   the UDP mapping is active.  Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST
   NOT destroy the NAT mapping.  A NAT which performs the functions
   described in the paragraph above is referred to as "support ICMP
   Processing".

   There is no significant security advantage to blocking ICMP
   Destination Unreachable packets.  Additionally, blocking ICMP
   Destination Unreachable packets can interfere with application
   failover, UDP Path MTU Discovery (see RFC1191 [3] and RFC1435 [4]),
   and traceroute.  Blocking any ICMP message is discouraged, and
   blocking ICMP Destination Unreachable is strongly discouraged.





Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   REQ-12: Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT destroy the NAT
      mapping.
      a) The NAT's default configuration SHOULD NOT filter ICMP messages
         based on their source IP address.
      b) It is RECOMMENDED that a NAT support ICMP Destination
         Unreachable messages.

   Justification: This is easy to do, is used for many things including
      MTU discovery and rapid detection of error conditions, and has no
      negative consequences.


10.  Fragmentation of Outgoing Packets

   When sending a packet, there are two situations that may cause IP
   fragmentation for packets from the inside to the outside.  It is
   worth noting that many IP stacks do not use Path MTU Discovery with
   UDP packets.

10.1.  Smaller Adjacent MTU

   The first situation is when the MTU of the adjacent link is too
   small.  This can occur if the NAT is doing PPPoE, or if the NAT has
   been configured with a small MTU to reduce serialization delay when
   sending large packets and small higher-priority packets, or for other
   reasons.

   The packet could have its Don't Fragment bit set to 1 (DF=1) or 0
   (DF=0).

   If the packet has DF=1, the NAT SHOULD send back an ICMP message
   "fragmentation needed and DF set" message to the host as described in
   RFC 792 [2].

   If the packet has DF=0, the NAT SHOULD fragment the packet and send
   the fragments, in order.  This is the same function a router performs
   in a similar situation RFC 1812 [5].

   NATs that operate as described in this section are described as
   "Supports Fragmentation" (abbreviated SF).

10.2.  Smaller Network MTU

   The second situation is when the MTU on some link in the middle of
   the network that is not the adjacent link is too small.  If DF=0, the
   router adjacent to the small-MTU segment will fragment the packet and
   forward the fragments as specified in RFC 1812 [5].




Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   If DF=1, the router adjacent to the small-MTU segment will send the
   ICMP message "fragmentation needed and DF set" back towards the NAT.
   The NAT needs to forward this ICMP message to the inside host.

   The classification of NATs that perform this behavior is covered in
   Section 9.

   REQ-13: A NAT MUST support fragmentation of packets larger than link
      MTU.

   Justification: Fragmented packets become more common with large video
      packets and should continue to work.  Applications can use MTU
      discovery to work around this problem.


11.  Receiving Fragmented Packets

   For a variety of reasons, a NAT may receive a fragmented packet.  The
   IP packet containing the header could arrive in any fragment
   depending on network conditions, packet ordering, and the
   implementation of the IP stack that generated the fragments.

   A NAT that is capable only of receiving fragments in order (that is,
   with the header in the first packet) and forwarding each of the
   fragments to the internal host is described as "Received Fragments
   Ordered".

   A NAT that is capable of receiving fragments in or out of order and
   forwarding the individual packets (or a reassembled packet) to the
   internal host is referred to as "Receive Fragments Out of Order".
   See the Security Considerations section of this document for a
   discussion of this behavior.

   A NAT that is neither of these is referred to as "Receive Fragments
   None".

   REQ-14: A NAT MUST support receiving in order and out of order
      fragments, so it MUST have "Received Fragment Out of Order"
      behavior.
      a) A NAT's out of order fragment processing mechanism MUST be
         designed so that fragmentation-based DoS attacks do not
         compromise the NAT's ability to process in-order and
         unfragmented IP packets.








Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   Justification: See Security Considerations.


12.  Requirements

   The requirements in this section are aimed at minimizing the
   complications caused by NATs to applications such as realtime
   communications and online gaming.  The requirements listed earlier in
   the document are consolidated here into a single section.

   It should be understood, however, that applications normally do not
   know in advance if the NAT conforms to the recommendations defined in
   this section.  Peer-to-peer media applications still need to use
   normal procedures such as ICE [18].

   A NAT that supports all of the mandatory requirements of this
   specification (i.e., the "MUST"), is "compliant with this
   specification."  A NAT that supports all of the requirements of this
   specification (i.e., including the "RECOMMENDED") is "fully compliant
   with all the mandatory and recommended requirements of this
   specification."

   REQ-1: A NAT MUST have an "External NAT mapping is endpoint
      independent" behavior.
   REQ-2: It is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "IP address pooling"
      behavior of "Paired".  Note that this requirement is not
      applicable to NATs that do not support IP address pooling.
   REQ-3: A NAT MUST NOT have a "Port assignment" behavior of "Port
      overloading".
      a) If the host's source port was in the range 1-1023, it is
         RECOMMENDED the NAT's source port be in the same range.  If the
         host's source port was in the range 1024-65535, it is
         RECOMMENDED that the NAT's source port be in that range.
   REQ-4: It is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have a "Port parity preservation"
      behavior of "Yes".
   REQ-5: A NAT UDP mapping timer MUST NOT expire in less than 2
      minutes.
      a) The value of the NAT UDP mapping timer MAY be configurable.
      b) A default value of 5 minutes for the NAT UDP mapping timer is
         RECOMMENDED.
   REQ-6: The NAT mapping Refresh Direction MUST have a "NAT Outbound
      refresh behavior" of "True".
      a) The NAT mapping Refresh Direction MAY have a "NAT Inbound
         refresh behavior" of "True".







Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   REQ-7 A NAT device whose external IP interface can be configured
      dynamically MUST either (1) Automatically ensure that its internal
      network uses IP addresses that do not conflict with its external
      network, or (2) Be able to translate and forward traffic between
      all internal nodes and all external nodes whose IP addresses do
      not numerically conflict with the internal network.
   REQ-8: If application transparency is most important, it is
      RECOMMENDED that a NAT have "Endpoint independent filtering"
      behavior.  If a more stringent filtering behavior is most
      important, it is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have "Address dependent
      filtering" behavior.
      a) The filtering behavior MAY be an option configurable by the
         administrator of the NAT.
   REQ-9: A NAT MUST support "Hairpinning".
      a) A NAT Hairpinning behavior MUST be "External source IP address
         and port".
   REQ-10: If a NAT includes ALGs that affect UDP, it is RECOMMENDED
      that all of those ALGs be disabled by default.
      a) If a NAT includes ALGs, it is RECOMMENDED that the NAT allow
         the NAT administrator to enable or disable each ALG separately.
   REQ-11: A NAT MUST have deterministic behavior, i.e., it MUST NOT
      change the NAT mapping or the External External Filtering Behavior
      at any point in time or under any particular conditions.
   REQ-12: Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT destroy the NAT
      mapping.
      a) The NAT's default configuration SHOULD NOT filter ICMP messages
         based on their source IP address.
      b) It is RECOMMENDED that a NAT support ICMP Destination
         Unreachable messages.
   REQ-13: A NAT MUST support fragmentation of packets larger than link
      MTU.
   REQ-14: A NAT MUST support receiving in order and out of order
      fragments, so it MUST have "Received Fragment Out of Order"
      behavior.
      a) A NAT's out of order fragment processing mechanism MUST be
         designed so that fragmentation-based DoS attacks do not
         compromise the NAT's ability to process in-order and
         unfragmented IP packets.


13.  Security Considerations

   NATs are often deployed to achieve security goals.  Most of the
   recommendations and requirements in this document do not affect the
   security properties of these devices, but a few of them do have
   security implications and are discussed in this section.

   This work recommends that the timers for mapping be refreshed only on



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   outgoing packets and does not make recommendations about whether or
   not inbound packets should update the timers.  If inbound packets
   update the timers, an external attacker can keep the mapping alive
   forever and attack future devices that may end up with the same
   internal address.  A device that was also the DHCP server for the
   private address space could mitigate this by cleaning any mappings
   when a DHCP lease expired.  For unicast UDP traffic (the scope of
   this document), it may not seem relevant to support inbound timer
   refresh; however, for multicast UDP, the question is harder.  It is
   expected that future documents discussing NAT behavior with multicast
   traffic will refine the requirements around handling of the inbound
   refresh timer.  Some devices today do update the timers on inbound
   packets.

   This work recommends that the NAT filters be specific to the external
   IP only and not to the external IP and port.  It can be argued that
   this is less secure than using the IP and port.  Devices that wish to
   filter on IP and port do still comply with these requirements.

   Non-deterministic NATs are risky from a security point of view.  They
   are very difficult to test because they are, well, non-deterministic.
   Testing by a person configuring one may result in the person thinking
   it is behaving as desired, yet under different conditions, which an
   attacker can create, the NAT may behave differently.  These
   requirements recommend that devices be deterministic.

   The work requires that NATs have an "external NAT mapping is endpoint
   independent" behavior.  This does not reduce the security of devices.
   Which packets are allowed to flow across the device is determined by
   the external filtering behavior, which is independent of the mapping
   behavior.

   When a fragmented packet is received from the external side and the
   packets are out of order so that the initial fragment does not arrive
   first, many systems simply discard the out of order packets.
   Moreover, since some networks deliver small packets ahead of large
   ones, there can be many out of order fragments.  NATs that are
   capable of delivering these out of order packets are possible but
   they need to store the out of order fragments, which can open up a
   DoS opportunity if done incorrectly.  Fragmentation has been a tool
   used in many attacks, some involving passing fragmented packets
   through NATs and others involving DoS attacks based on the state
   needed to reassemble the fragments.  NAT implementers should be aware
   of RFC 3128 [11] and RFC 1858 [6].


14.  IANA Considerations




Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   There are no IANA considerations.


15.  IAB Considerations

   The IAB has studied the problem of "Unilateral Self Address Fixing",
   which is the general process by which a client attempts to determine
   its address in another realm on the other side of a NAT through a
   collaborative protocol reflection mechanism [15].

   This specification does not in itself constitute an UNSAF
   application.  It consists of a series of requirements for NATs aimed
   at minimizing the negative impact that those devices have on peer-to-
   peer media applications, especially when those applications are using
   UNSAF methods.

   Section 3 of UNSAF lists several practical issues with solutions to
   NAT problems.  This document makes recommendations to reduce the
   uncertainty and problems introduced by these practical issues with
   NATs.  In addition, UNSAF lists five architectural considerations.
   Although this is not an UNSAF proposal, it is interesting to consider
   the impact of this work on these architectural considerations.

   Arch-1: The scope of this is limited to UDP packets in NATs like the
           ones widely deployed today.  The "fix" helps constrain the
           variability of NATs for true UNSAF solutions such as STUN.
   Arch-2: This will exit at the same rate that NATs exit.  It does not
           imply any protocol machinery that would continue to live
           after NATs were gone or make it more difficult to remove
           them.
   Arch-3: This does not reduce the overall brittleness of NATs but will
           hopefully reduce some of the more outrageous NAT behaviors
           and make it easer to discuss and predict NAT behavior in
           given situations.
   Arch-4: This work and the results [19] of various NATs represent the
           most comprehensive work at IETF on what the real issues are
           with NATs for applications like VoIP.  This work and STUN
           have pointed out more than anything else the brittleness NATs
           introduce and the difficulty of addressing these issues.
   Arch-5: This work and the test results [19] provide a reference model
           for what any UNSAF proposal might encounter in deployed NATs.


16.  Acknowledgments

   The editor would like to acknowledge Bryan Ford, Pyda Srisuresh and
   Dan Kegel for the their multiple contributions on peer-to-peer
   communications across a NAT.  Dan Wing contributed substantial text



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


   on IP fragmentation and ICMP behavior.  Thanks to Rohan Mahy,
   Jonathan Rosenberg, Mary Barnes, Melinda Shore, Lyndsay Campbell,
   Geoff Huston, Jiri Kuthan, Harald Welte, Steve Casner, Robert
   Sanders, Spencer Dawkins, Saikat Guha, Christian Huitema, Yutaka
   Takeda and Paul Hoffman for their contributions.


17.  References

17.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

17.2.  Informational References

   [2]   Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
         RFC 792, September 1981.

   [3]   Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
         November 1990.

   [4]   Knowles, S., "IESG Advice from Experience with Path MTU
         Discovery", RFC 1435, March 1993.

   [5]   Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers", RFC 1812,
         June 1995.

   [6]   Ziemba, G., Reed, D., and P. Traina, "Security Considerations
         for IP Fragment Filtering", RFC 1858, October 1995.

   [7]   Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and E.
         Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5,
         RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [8]   Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address Translator
         (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC 2663, August 1999.

   [9]   Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network Address
         Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, January 2001.

   [10]  Holdrege, M. and P. Srisuresh, "Protocol Complications with the
         IP Network Address Translator", RFC 3027, January 2001.

   [11]  Miller, I., "Protection Against a Variant of the Tiny Fragment
         Attack (RFC 1858)", RFC 3128, June 2001.

   [12]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,



Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


         Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
         Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [13]  Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., and R. Mahy, "STUN
         - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through
         Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489, March 2003.

   [14]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
         "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
         RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [15]  Daigle, L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-
         Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation",
         RFC 3424, November 2002.

   [16]  Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute in
         Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605, October 2003.

   [17]  Rosenberg, J., "Simple Traversal of UDP Through Network Address
         Translators (NAT) (STUN)", draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-02
         (work in progress), July 2005.

   [18]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A
         Methodology for Network  Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
         Offer/Answer Protocols", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-05 (work in
         progress), July 2005.

   [19]  Jennings, C., "NAT Classification Test Results",
         draft-jennings-behave-test-results-01 (work in progress),
         July 2005.

   [20]  "Packet-based Multimedia Communications Systems", ITU-
         T Recommendation H.323, July 2003.


















Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


Authors' Addresses

   Francois Audet (editor)
   Nortel Networks
   4655 Great America Parkway
   Santa Clara, CA  95054
   US

   Phone: +1 408 495 3756
   Email: audet@nortel.com


   Cullen Jennings
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   MS: SJC-21/2
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   Phone: +1 408 902 3341
   Email: fluffy@cisco.com






























Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft        NAT UDP Unicast Requirements        September 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

   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.


Disclaimer of Validity

   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 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.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Audet & Jennings         Expires March 10, 2006                [Page 28]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/