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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 RFC 5245

MMUSIC                                                      J. Rosenberg
Internet-Draft                                               dynamicsoft
Expires: August 16, 2004                               February 16, 2004


    Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Methodology for
   Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Multimedia Session
                        Establishment Protocols
                        draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-01

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 16, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes a methodology for Network Address Translator
   (NAT) traversal for multimedia session signaling protocols, such as
   the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). This methodology is called
   Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE). ICE is not a new
   protocol, but rather makes use of existing protocols, such as Simple
   Traversal of UDP Through NAT (STUN), Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN)
   and even Real Specific IP (RSIP). ICE works through the mutual
   cooperation of both endpoints in a session.






Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.   Multimedia Signaling Protocol Abstraction  . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.   Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.   Overview of ICE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.   Detailed ICE Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.1  Gathering Transport Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.2  Enabling STUN on Each Transport Address  . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.3  Prioritizing the Transport Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.4  Constructing the Initiate Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.5  Responder Processing - Connectivity Checks and Gathering . .  13
   5.6  Generating the Accept Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.7  Initiator Processing of the Accept . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.8  Additional ICE Cycles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.   Running STUN on Derived Transport Addresses  . . . . . . . .  19
   6.1  STUN on a TURN Derived Transport Address . . . . . . . . . .  19
   6.2  STUN on a STUN Derived Transport Address . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.   XML Schema for ICE Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   8.   Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   9.   Mapping ICE into SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   10.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   11.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   12.  IAB Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   12.1 Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   12.2 Exit Strategy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   12.3 Brittleness Introduced by ICE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   12.4 Requirements for a Long Term Solution  . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   12.5 Issues with Existing NAPT Boxes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   13.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
        Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
        Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
        Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
        Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . .  36

















Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


1. Introduction

   A multimedia session signaling protocol is a protocol that exchanges
   messages between a pair of agents for the purposes of establishing
   the flow of media traffic between them. This media flow is distinct
   from the flow of control messages, and may take a different path
   through the network. Examples of such protocols are the Session
   Initiation Protocol (SIP) [4], the Real Time Streaming Protocol
   (RTSP) [5] and ITU H.323.

   These protocols, by nature of their design, are difficult to operate
   through Network Address Translation (NAT). Because their purpose in
   life is to establish a flow of packets, they tend to carry IP
   addresses within their messages, which is known to be problematic
   through NAT [6]. The protocols also aim for peer to peer media flow,
   in order to reduce latency, which is also difficult to accomplish
   through NAT. Many other aspects of these protocols are fundamentally
   incompatible with NAT. A full treatment of the reasons for this is
   beyond the scope of this specification.

   Numerous solutions have been proposed for allowing these protocols to
   operate through NAT. These include Application Layer Gateways (ALGs),
   the Middlebox Control Protocol [7], Simple Traversal of UDP through
   NAT (STUN) [1], Traversal Using Relay NAT [14], Realm Specific IP
   [8][9], symmetric RTP [10], along with session description extensions
   needed to make them work, such as [2]. Unfortunately, these
   techniques all have pros and cons which make each one optimal in some
   network topologies, but a poor choice in others. The result is that
   administrators and implementors are making assumptions about the
   topologies of the networks in which their solutions will be deployed.
   This introduces a lot of complexity and brittleness into the system.
   What is needed is a single solution which is flexible enough to work
   well in all situations.

   This specification provides that solution. It is called Interactive
   Connectivity Establishment, or ICE. ICE makes use of many of the
   protocols above, but uses them in a specific methodology which avoids
   many of the pitfalls of using any one alone. ICE is not a new
   protocol, and does not require extensions from STUN, TURN or RSIP.
   However, it does require additional signaling capabilities to be
   introduced into the multimedia session signaling protocols. For those
   protocols which make use of the Session Description Protocol (SDP),
   this specification defines the necessary extensions to it. Other
   protocols will need to define their own mechanisms.







Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


2. Multimedia Signaling Protocol Abstraction

   This specification defines a general methodology that allows the
   media streams of multimedia signaling protocols to successfully
   traverse NAT. This methodology is independent of any particular
   signaling protocol. In order to discuss the methodology, we need to
   to define an abstraction of a multimedia signaling system, and define
   terms that can be used throughout this specification. Figure 1 shows
   the abstraction.



                               +-----------+
                               |           |
                               |           |
                             > | Signaling |\
                            /  | Relay     | \
                           /   |           |  \
                Initiate  /    |           |   \   Initiate
               Message   /   / +-----------+    \  Message
                        /   /                <   \
                       /   /                  \   \
                      /   /                    \   \
                     /   / Accept       Accept  \   \
                    /   /   Message     Message  \   >
                   /   /                          \
       +-----------+  /                            \   +-----------+
       |           | <                                 |           |
       |           |             Media Stream          |           |
       |  Session  | ................................  | Session   |
       | Initiator |                                   | Responder |
       |           |             Media Stream          |           |
       |           | ................................  |           |
       +-----------+                                   +-----------+

                                Figure 1

   Communications occur between two clients - the session initiator and
   the session responder, also referred to as the initiator and
   responder. The initiator is the one that decides to engage in
   communications. To do so, it sends an initiate message. The initiate
   message contains parameters that describe the capabilities and
   configuration of media streams for the initiator. This message may
   travel through signaling intermediaries, called a signaling relay,
   before finally arriving at the session responder. Assuming the
   session responder wishes to communication, it generates an accept
   message, which is relayed back to the initiator. This message
   contains capabilities and configuration of media streams for the



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   responder. As a result, media streams are established between the
   initiator and responder. The signaling protocol may also support an
   operation that allows for modification of the media stream parameters
   after establishment. We refer to this signaling messages as a modify
   message. Its positive response is a modify acceptance message. The
   signaling protocol may also support an operation that allows for
   termination of the communications session. We refer to this signaling
   message as a terminate message.

   This abstraction is readily mapped to SIP, RTSP, and H.323, amongst
   others. For SIP, the initiator is the User Agent Client (UAC), the
   responder is the User Agent Server (UAS), the initiate message is an
   INVITE containing an SDP offer, the accept message is a 200 OK
   containing an SDP answer, the modify message is an INVITE with an
   offer, the modify acceptance response is a 200 OK with an answer, and
   the terminate message is a BYE. For RTSP, the initiator is the RTSP
   client, the responder is the RTSP server, the initiate message is a
   SETUP message, and the accept message is a SETUP response. The modify
   message is a SETUP message, and the modify acceptance message is a
   SETUP response.

   This specification defines parameters that need to be included in
   these various signaling messages in order to implement the
   functionality described by ICE. Those parameters are represented in
   XML for convenience. Any multimedia signaling protocol that uses ICE
   will need to define how to map those parameters into its own protocol
   messages. Section 9 provides such a mapping for SIP.
























Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


3. Terminology

   Several new terms are introduced in this specification:

   Session Initiator: A software entity that, at the request of a user,
      tries to establish communications with another entity, called the
      session responder. A session initiator is also called an
      initiator.

   Initiator: Another term for a session initiator.

   Session Responder: A software entity that receives a request for
      establishment of communications from the session initiator, and
      either accepts or declines the request. A session responder is
      also called a responder.

   Responder: Another term for a session responder.

   Client: Either the initiator or responder.

   Peer: From the perspective of one of the clients in a session, its
      peer is the other client. Specifically, from the perspective of
      the initiator, the peer is the responder. From the perspective of
      the responder, the peer is the initiator.

   Signaling Relay: An intermediary of signaling messages. Examples are
      SIP proxies and H.323 Gatekeepers.

   Initiate Message: The signaling message used by an initiator to
      establish communications. It contains capabilities and other
      information needed by the responder to send media to the
      initiator.

   Accept Message: The signaling message used by a responder to agree to
      communications. It contains capabilities and other information
      needed by the initiator to send media to the responder.

   Modify Message: The signaling message used by either an initiator or
      responder to change the capability and other information needed by
      the peer for sending media.

   Modify Acceptance Message The signaling message used by a client to
      agree to the changes proposed in a modify message, and to present
      the capability or other information needed by its peer for sending
      media.






Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   Terminate Message The signaling message used by a client to terminate
      the session and associated media streams.

   Transport Address: The combination of an IP address and port.

   Local Transport Address: A local transport address is transport
      address that has been allocated from the operating system on the
      host. This includes transport addresses obtained through VPNs, and
      also transport addresses obtained through RSIP (which lives at the
      operating system level). Transport addresses are typically
      obtained by binding to an interface.

   Derived Transport Address: A derived transport address is a transport
      address which is associated with, but different from, a local
      transport address. The derived transport address is associated
      with the local transport address in that packets sent to the
      derived transport address are received on the socket bound to that
      local transport address. Derived addresses are obtained using
      protocols like STUN and TURN, and more generally, any UNSAF
      protocol [11].

   Peer Derived Transport Address: A peer derived transport address is a
      derived transport address learned from a STUN server advertised by
      a peer in a media session.

   TURN Derived Transport Address: A derived transport address obtained
      from a TURN server.

   STUN Derived Transport Address: A derived transport address obtained
      from a STUN server whose address has been provisioned into the UA.
      This, by definition, excludes Peer Derived Transport Addresses.

   Unilateral Allocations: Queries made to a network server which
      provides an UNSAF service.

   Bilateral Allocations: Addresses obtained by using an UNSAF service
      that actually runs on the peer of the communications session. Peer
      derived transport addresses are synonymous with bilateral
      allocations.












Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


4. Overview of ICE

   ICE makes the fundamental assumption that clients exist in a network
   of segmented connectivity. This segmentation is the result of a
   number of addressing realms in which a client can simultaneously be
   connected. We use "realms" here in the broadest sense. A realm is
   defined purely by connectivity. Two clients are in the same realm if,
   when they exchange the addresses each has in that realm, they are
   able to send packets to each other. This includes IPv6 and IPv4
   realms, which actually use different address spaces, in addition to
   private networks connected to the public Internet through NAT.

   The key assumption in ICE is that a client cannot know, apriori,
   whether the peer it wishes to communicate with is connected to one or
   all of the address realms it is in. Therefore, in order to
   communicate, it has to try them all, and choose the best one that
   works.

   Before the initiator establishes a session, it obtains as many IP
   address and port combinations in as many address realms as it can.
   These adresses all represent potential points at which the initiator
   will receive a specific media stream. Any protocol that provides a
   client with an IP address and port on which it can receive traffic
   can be used. These include STUN, TURN, RSIP, and even a VPN. The
   client also uses any local interface addresses. A dual-stack v4/v6
   client will obtain both a v6 and a v4 address/port. The only
   requirement is that, across all of these addresses, the initiator can
   be certain that at least one of them will work for any responder it
   might communicate with. This is easily guaranteed by using TURN,
   RSIP, MIDCOM or a VPN from a server on the public Internet to obtain
   one of the addresses.

   The initiator then makes a STUN server available on each of the
   address/port combinations it has obtained. This STUN server is
   running locally, on the initiator. All of these addresses are placed
   into the initiate message, and they are ordered in terms of
   preference. Local IPv6 addresses always have the highest preference,
   followed by local IPv4 addresses, followed by STUN-allocated
   addresses, followed last by addresses allocated through protocols
   using relays, such as TURN and VPN. The initiate message also conveys
   the STUN username and password which are required to gain access to
   the STUN server on each address/port combination.

   The initiate message is sent to the responder. This specification
   does not address the issue of how the signaling messages themselves
   traverse NAT. It is assumed that signaling protocol specific
   mechanisms are used for that purpose. Once the responder receives the
   initiate message, it sends STUN requests to each alternate address/



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   port in the initiate message. These STUN requests include the
   username and password obtained from the initiate message. None of the
   STUN flags are used. The STUN requests serve two purposes. The first
   is to check for connectivity. If a response is received, the
   responder knows that it can reach the initiator at that address. The
   second purpose is to obtain more addresses at which the responder can
   be contacted. If there were NATs between the responder and initiator,
   the responder may discover another address through the STUN
   responses. In its accept message, the responder includes all
   addresses that it can unilaterally determine (just as the initiator
   did), in addition to any that were discovered using the STUN messages
   to the initiator.

   When the accept message arrives at the initiator, the initiator
   performs a similar operation. Using STUN, it checks connectivity to
   each of the addresses in the accept message. Through the STUN
   responses, it may learn of additional addresses that it can use to
   receive media. It can therefore generate a modify message to pass
   this address to the responder. Generally, at the end of the first
   exchange, both sides will have discovered one of more addresses which
   they are capable of successfully sending media to. Each side uses the
   most preferred address amongst the ones which worked.

   In some cases, an additional exchange will be required.



























Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


5. Detailed ICE Algorithm

   This section describes the detailed processing needed for ICE.

5.1 Gathering Transport Addresses

   The initiator begins the process by gathering transport addresses.
   There are two types of addresses it can gather - local transport
   addresses, and derived transport addresses. Local transport addresses
   are obtained by binding to an ephemeral port on an interface
   (physical or virtual) on the host. A multi-homed host SHOULD attempt
   to bind on all interfaces for all media streams it wishes to receive.
   For media streams carried using the Real Time Transport Protocol
   (RTP) [12], the initiator will need to bind to an ephemeral port for
   both RTP and RTCP.

   The result will be a set of local transport addresses. The initiator
   may also have access to servers that provide unilateral self-address
   fixing (UNSAF) [11]. Examples of such protocols include STUN, TURN,
   and TEREDO [13]. For each of these protocols, the initiator may have
   access to a multiplicity of servers. For example, a user connected to
   a natted cable access network might have access to a STUN server in
   the private cable network and in the public Internet. For each local
   transport address, the initiator SHOULD obtain an address from every
   server for each protocol it supports. The result of this will be a
   set of derived transport addresses, with each derived address
   associated with the local transport address it is derived from.

   ICE works better the more options exist for connectivity. However, in
   order to communicate with the peer, at least one of the offered
   addresses has to be guaranteed to work with any peer that might be
   called. This generally requires that at least one of the derived
   addresses be obtained from a relay service (such as TURN) that exist
   within the public Internet. ICE requires that a client know, through
   configuration, which of the derived transport addresses is coming
   from a provider on the public Internet.

5.2 Enabling STUN on Each Transport Address

   Once the initiator has obtained a set of transport addresses, it
   starts a STUN server on each local transport address (including ones
   used for RTCP). This, by definition, means that the STUN service will
   be reached for requests sent to the derived addresses.

   However, the client does not need to provide STUN service on any
   other IP address or port, unlike the normal STUN usage as described
   in [1]. The need to run the service on multiple ports is to support
   the change flags. However, those flags are not needed with ICE, and



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   the server SHOULD reject any requests with these flags set.

   Furthermore, there is no need to support TLS or to be prepared to
   receive SharedSecret request messages. Those messages are used to
   obtain shared secrets to be used with BindingRequests. However, with
   ICE, usernames and passwords are exchanged in the signaling protocol.

   It is important to note that the client will receive both STUN
   requests and media packets on each local transport address. This will
   require the initiator to disambiguate STUN messages from messages for
   the underlying media stream protocol. In the case of RTP/RTCP, this
   disambiguation is easy. RTP and RTCP packets start with the bits 0b10
   (v=2). The first two bits in STUN are always 0b00. Disambiguating
   STUN with other media stream protocols may be more complicated.
   However, it is guaranteed to always be possible by selecting an
   appropriately random username (see below).

   The need to run STUN on the same transport address as the media
   stream represents the "ugliest" piece of ICE. However, it is an
   essential part of the story. By sending STUN requests to the very
   same place media is sent, any bindings learned through STUN will be
   useful even when communicating through symmetric NATs. This results
   in a substantial increase in the scope of applicability of STUN, in
   terms of cases where it can provide connectivity. In that sense, the
   usage of STUN here is radically different than the usage models
   outlined in [1], where STUN is generally useless for dealing with
   symmetric NAT.

   For each local transport address where a STUN server is running, the
   client MUST choose a username and password. The username MUST be
   globally unique, so that no other host will select a username with
   the same value. This username and password will be passed to the
   responder in the initiate message. They are used by the responder to
   authenticate the STUN requests to the server.

   The global uniqueness requirement stems from the lack of uniquenes
   afforded by IP addresses. Consider clients A, B, and C. A and B are
   within private enterprise 1, which is using 10.0.0.0/8. C is within
   private enterprise 2, which is also using 10.0.0.0/8. As it turns
   out, B and C both have IP address 10.0.1.1. A initiates
   communications to C. C, in its accept message, provides A with its
   transport addresses. In this case, thats 10.0.1.1:8866 and 8877. As
   it turns out, B is in a session at that same time, and is also using
   10.0.1.1:8866 and 8877. This means that B has a STUN server running
   on those ports, just as C does. A will send a STUN request to
   10.0.1.1:8866 and 8877. However, these do not go to C as expected.
   Instead, they go to B. If B just replied to them, A would believe it
   has connectivity to C, when in fact it has connectivity to a



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   completely different user, B. To fix this, the STUN username takes on
   the role of a unique identifier. C provides A with a unique username.
   A uses this username in its STUN query to 10.0.1.1:8866. This STUN
   query arrives at B. However, the username is unknown to B, and so the
   request is rejected. A treats the rejected STUN request as if there
   were no connectivity to C (which is actually true). Therefore, the
   error is avoided.

   Once the STUN server is started, it MUST run until the first media
   packet arrives on that address. Once that occurs, the agent MAY
   terminate the server. It is still possible that a late or lost STUN
   message will show up, but these will generally fail any media stream
   validity checks and be discarded (STUN packets always fail the RTP
   validity checks).

   While the server is running, it MUST act as a normal STUN server, but
   MUST only accept STUN requests from clients that authenticate using
   the username and password handed out for the dialog.

5.3 Prioritizing the Transport Addresses

   With the STUN servers starting, the next step is to prioritize the
   transport addresses. This priority reflects the desire that the UA
   has to receive media on that address, and is assigned as a value from
   0 to 1 (1 being most preferred). Although any prioritization is
   possible, it is RECOMMENDED that the prioritization be based on the
   number of intermediaries that will be traversed. The fewer
   intermediaries, the higher the priority. Furthermore, it is
   RECOMMENDED that, given an equal number of intermediaries, an IPv6
   address receive higher priority than an IPv4 address. As a result of
   this, local IPv6 transport addresses obtained from physical
   interfaces have highest priority. Next are local IPv4 transport
   addresses obtained from physical interfaces. Next are STUN derived
   transport addresses, followed by TURN, RSIP or TEREDO derived
   transport addresses. Peer derived transport addresses obtained
   through STUN requests sent through a TURN relay using the SEND
   command have a priority equal to TURN derived transport addresses.
   Last up are local transport addresses obtained from VPN interfaces.

   Ordering of transport addresses within any one of the groups above
   (i.e., addresses obtained from relay services, such as TURN or RSIP),
   is more complicated. When a device is configured to use a
   multiplicity of these relays, each from the same provider, it is
   RECOMMENDED that the client be configured with the relative
   preference for each. This is useful, for example, in enterprises with
   multiple layers of NAT, each of which hosts a relay. In such a case,
   the preference for each relay would normally decrease as the relays
   move farther away from the client.



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


5.4 Constructing the Initiate Message

   The next step is to construct the initiate message. Section 7
   provides the XML schema for the initiate message. The message
   consists of a series of media streams. For each media stream, there
   is a default address and a list of alternates. The default address is
   the one that will be used by responders that don't understand ICE.
   This is mapped to the address currently conveyed in the signaling
   messages of SIP, H.323 and RTSP. The alternates provide additional
   points of contact.

   For each media stream, the client chooses the transport address which
   has the highest probability of working with any arbitrary peer.
   Generally, this will be a transport address learned from a relay
   service on the public Internet, such as TURN. Frequently this is also
   the lowest priority transport address. This transport address is
   placed into default address in the initiate message. This is the
   address that will be used by a peer that doesn't understand ICE.
   Therefore, to maximize the ability to complete a call, the address
   which is most likely to succeed is used.

   The client then encodes all of its available transport addresses
   (including the one that was set as the default) as a series of
   alternate elements. Each alternate element conveys a transport
   address for RTP, one for RTCP, the STUN username and STUN password.
   The client MUST assign each alternate a unique identifier. These
   identifiers MUST be unique across all alternates used within the
   session. This identifier is encoded in the "id" attribute of the
   alternate element. The priority for the transport address, as
   computed above, is included as an attribute as well.

   Once the initiate message is constructed, it is sent.

5.5 Responder Processing - Connectivity Checks and Gathering

   Once the responder receives the initiate message, it does several
   things in parallel. First, it performs the same processing described
   in Section 5.1. Specifically, for each media stream in the initiate
   message, the responder allocates a set of local transport addresses
   and the full set of derived transport addresses.

   Note that these addresses can be "pre-gathered" before the call is
   even received, so that a set is always "on-deck". This will avoid any
   increase in call setup times, at the expense of holding onto
   addresses which may not get used. Retaining these addresses may also
   require refresh traffic that consumes network bandwidth.

   While the unilateral derived addresses are being obtained, the



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   responder sends a STUN BindingRequest from each local transport
   address to each STUN server identified in an alternate in the
   initiate message. This BindingRequest MUST contain the USERNAME
   attribute, and the value of the USERNAME MUST equal the username from
   that alternate element. Similarly, the BindingRequest MUST contain a
   PASSWORD attribute, and the value of the PASSWORD MUST equal the
   password from the alternate element. The BindingRequest MUST contain
   a MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute, computed using the username and
   password from the alternate element in the initiate message. The
   BindingRequest MUST NOT contain the CHANGE-REQUEST or
   RESPONSE-ADDRESS attribute.

   It is RECOMMENDED that these STUN requests be sent in parallel. The
   responder MAY alert the user during this time. Generally, if the user
   is a human (and not an automata), the STUN transactions will have
   completed before the call is answered.

   If the responder had obtained an address from TURN, it MAY use the
   TURN SEND primitive to relay STUN BindingRequest messages, in
   addition to sending them from the associated local transport address.
   Generally, this would be done only by clients in networks that
   prevent the client from sending outbound traffic directly to the
   public Internet. These networks frequently require outbound traffic
   to pass through some kind of intermediary. A TURN server can play the
   role of such an intermediary. It is RECOMMENDED that, whether a
   client should or should not also relay its STUN BindingRequests
   through the TURN server, be configurable.

   When STUN BindingRequest messages are being sent through a TURN
   server, the ordering of alternates which are tried makes a
   difference. When one of these BindingRequest messages elicits a
   response, the response packet causes the TURN server to lock down
   towards that alternate. Once locked down, the relay cannot be used
   for receiving traffic from other addresses. If the lock down occurs
   to an alternate with low preference, the result is sub-optimal. To
   avoid this, instead of trying each alternate in parallel, it is
   RECOMMENDED that the client try the addresses sequentially, starting
   with the alternate with the highest preference value.

      OPEN ISSUE: Trying this sequentially is ugly. Any alternatives I
      was able to come up with required the client to control lock down.
      Once this happens, it becomes possible to misuse TURN to run
      public services behind a NAT, which is considered a non-starter.
      Is there some other way?

   In all cases, if the STUN BindingRequest elicits a BindingResponse
   before the STUN transaction times out, the result is considered a
   success. For successful transactions, the responder stores the



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   transport address from the initiate message (which identifies both
   the STUN server and the place where media is sent), the local
   transport address from which the STUN request was sent, the id of
   that alternate from the initiate message, and the preference from
   that alternate. If the STUN transaction succeeds, the client knows
   for certain that the media can reach the destination as well. That is
   because the media traffic will be sent from the same transport
   address, to the same trasport address, as the STUN packet was.

   When a client receives an initiate message, it MAY begin sending
   media immediately to the address and port specified in the default.
   If that address and port was also listed as an alternate, the client
   MUST send media from the same address and port used to send a STUN
   request to the peer. As the STUN transactions begin to complete, the
   client begins to learn which alternates it has connectivity to. If
   one of those alternates has a higher priority than the one currently
   in use, that transport address MUST be used instead (along with its
   corresponding local address). Note that, between two transport
   addresses with the same preference, a STUN derived address MUST be
   used. Furthermore, once a client sends media to a transport address
   with a specified priority, it MUST NOT, during the lifetime of the
   session, send media to a connected transport address with a lower
   priority.

   This restriction allows a client to free derived transport addresses
   once it knows that its peer has been able to connect to a transport
   address with higher priority, or one of equal priority if it was peer
   derived. A client can know that a peer was able to connect to a
   transport address based on the receipt of a STUN BindingRequest
   against that transport address. The username and password in the STUN
   BindingRequest can be used to determine which transport address the
   STUN request was generated against. Note that the transport address
   that the STUN request was received on does not say anything about
   which transport address the peer sent to, and so the username and
   password are used. Such an address SHOULD be freed no earlier than 3
   seconds after receipt of the STUN request. This provides a window of
   time for the peer to cease using the address and switch to a better
   one.

      This connectivity check makes an important assumption. It assumes
      that if a STUN request is able to get from A to B, the STUN
      response will get from B to A (packet losses aside). To our
      knowledge this is generally true, since it is one of the
      definining characteristics of the client-server protocols that
      NATs have been designed to pass. We need to make this assumption
      in order to free up resources and also eliminate additional ICE
      cycles.




Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   The drawback of this restriction is that if connectivity should be
   lost during the session, the client cannot fall back to lower
   priority address. We believe that it is more important to free
   unneeded resources than to hold onto them in case of the unlikely
   event of a problem.

   For those successful STUN transactions, the responder compares the
   MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute in the response to the local transport
   address from which the STUN request was sent. If the two differ, the
   responder considers the MAPPED-ADDRESS as another transport address
   that has been gathered for usage in this session. This transport
   address is referred to as a peer derived transport address. The
   preference of this transport address is set to the value of the
   preference of that alternate from the initiate message. For example,
   if the initiator provides a transport address obtained from a local
   interface, it might set the preference to 1.0. If the responder sends
   a STUN request to the server and obtains a new transport address,
   that transport address is assigned a preference of 1.0. That
   preference will be used in comparison to other addresses gathered by
   the responder.

   If any STUN BindingRequest results in a BindingErrorResponse, the
   ERROR-CODE is examined. If it is 401, 430, 432 or 500, the client
   SHOULD retry the request, applying any appropriate fixes specified by
   the error code. In the case of 400, 431 and 600, the client MUST NOT
   retry. This case is treated identically to a timeout, so that it is
   equal to no connectivity at all.

5.6 Generating the Accept Message

   At some point, the responder will decide to accept or reject the
   communications. A rejection terminates ICE processing, of course. In
   the case of acceptance, the accept message is constructed as follows.

   At the time when the accept message is to be sent, the responder will
   have gathered some number of transport addresses. Some of these will
   be local transport addresses, some will be unilaterally derived
   addresses, and some will be stun derived from the peer in the dialog.
   Each of these will have a preference, based on either the rules in
   Section 5.1 or Section 5.5.

   Constructing the accept proceeds identically to the way in which the
   initiate message is constructed (Section 5.4). The transport address
   with the highest probability of success is placed into the default
   element. All of the alternatives (including the one placed into the
   default) are placed into an alternate element. Each is assigned a
   unique ID. For alternates that were peer-dervived STUN addresses, the
   derived element is present, and it contains the id of the initiator's



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   alternate it was derived from. Each alternate contains its preference
   as computed above. Each alternate contains a username and password
   that must be used to contact the STUN server listening on that
   address. Each address SHOULD have a different username and password.

   The accept is then sent.

5.7 Initiator Processing of the Accept

   There are two possible cases for processing of the Accept message. If
   the recipient of the Initiate message did not support ICE, the Accept
   message will only contain the default address information. As a
   result, the initiator knows that it cannot perform its connectivity
   checks. In this case, it SHOULD just sent to the transport address
   listed. However, if local configuration information tells the
   initiator to try connectivity checks by sending them through the TURN
   server, this means that packets sent directly to responder may be
   dropped by a local firewall. To deal with this, the initiator SHOULD
   allocate, using TURN, a new TURN derived transport address. It does
   not advertise this address anywhere. Rather, it issues a SEND command
   using this new transport address. The SEND command contains the media
   packet to send to the responder. Once this command has been accepted,
   the initiator SHOULD send all media packets to the TURN server, which
   will then forward them towards the responder.

   If the Accept message contains alternates, the processing of the
   accept by the initiator is nearly identical to that of the responder
   processing the initiate message. Specifically, the initiator will
   send STUN requests to the STUN servers listed in the accept. This
   results in the same connectivity processing, and will also result in
   the gathering of new STUN derived addresses. The initiator can begin
   sending media to the responder immediately using the address in the
   default. Once STUN has verified connectivity of higher priority
   addresses, media is sent to those addresses instead. When a client
   sends media to an alternate with higher priority, if that alternate
   contained the derived element, the client MUST send media from the
   local transport address with the id contained in the derived element.

5.8 Additional ICE Cycles

   After the completion of the initiate/accept exchange, both sides may
   continue to obtain more derived transport addresses. This may occur
   because a STUN transaction took too long to complete, and thus missed
   the "window" of the previous initiate message/accept exchange. Or, it
   may occur because the previous initiate/accept exchange provided
   additional addresses which resulted in new STUN derived attributes.

   At any point when either client has one or more new gathered



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   addresses, it MAY initiate a modify message, and therefore a new
   corresponding ICE cycle. This modify message is identical to the
   initiate or accept message generated previously by that client.
   However, it would include any additional alternates learned since the
   last message was sent. However, if the preference of those new
   gathered addresses is lower than the preference for an address that
   the peer has established connectivity to, the client SHOULD NOT
   initiate a modify exchange just to convey this address. If an modify
   exchange is taking place anyway (because a higher priority address is
   available), the lower qvalue addresses SHOULD be included. A client
   can determine which addresses a peer has established connectivity to
   by checking if a STUN request was sent by the peer to that address.

      OPEN ISSUE: This optimization doesnt work in cases where the peer
      establishes connectivity by sending media through its TURN relay,
      since the resulting priority is less. The client doesnt have any
      way to know whether or not the connectivity check was made by
      sending through a relay.

   Typically, there won't be more than one or two ICE cycles before
   convergence. Assuming that there is no network packet loss (which can
   extend the STUN transaction) and zero network latency, it appears
   that a maximum of two ICE cycles are needed to reach convergence.




























Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


6. Running STUN on Derived Transport Addresses

   One of the seemingly bizarre operations done during the ICE
   processing is the transmission of a STUN request to a transport
   address which is obtained through TURN or STUN itself. This actually
   does work, and in fact, has extremely useful properties. The
   subsections below go through the detailed operations that would occur
   at each point to demonstrate correctness and the properties derived
   from it.

6.1 STUN on a TURN Derived Transport Address

   Consider a client A that is behind a NAT. It connects to a TURN
   server on the public side of the NAT. To do that, A binds to a local
   transport address, say 10.0.1.1:8866, and then sends a TURN request
   to the TURN server. The NAT translates the net-10 address to
   192.0.2.88:5063. Assume that the TURN server is running on 192.0.2.1
   and listening for TURN traffic on port 7764. The TURN server
   allocates a derived transport address 192.0.2.1:26524 to the client,
   and returns it in the TURN response. Remember that all traffic from
   the TURN server to the client is sent from 192.0.2.1:7764 to
   10.0.1.1:8866.

   Now, the client runs a STUN server on 10.0.1.1:8866, and advertises
   that its server actually runs on 192.0.2.1:26524. Another client, B,
   sends a STUN request to this server. It sends it from a local
   transport address, 192.0.2.77:1296. When it arrives at
   192.0.2.1:26524, the TURN server "locks down" outgoing traffic, so
   that data packets received from A are sent to 192.0.2.77:1296. The
   STUN request is then forwarded to the client, sent with a source
   address of 192.0.2.1:7764 and a destination address of
   192.0.2.88:5063. This passes through the NAT, which rewrites the
   source address to 10.0.1.1:8866. This arrives at A's STUN server. The
   server observes the source address of 192.0.2.1:7764, and generates a
   STUN response containing this value in the MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute.
   The STUN response is sent with a source address fo 10.0.1.1:8866, and
   a destination of 192.0.2.1:7764. This arrives at the TURN server,
   which, because of the lock-down, sends the STUN response with a
   source address of 192.0.2.1:26524 and destination of 192.0.2.77:1296,
   which is B's STUN client.

   Now, as far as B is concerned, it has obtained a new STUN derived
   transport address of 192.0.2.1:7764. And indeed, it has! STUN derived
   transport addresses are scoped to the session, so they can only be
   used by the peer in the session. Furthermore, that peer has to send
   requests from the socket on which the STUN server was running. In
   this case, A is the peer, and its STUN server was on 10.0.1.1:8866.
   If it sends to 192.0.2.1:7764, the packet goes to the TURN server,



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   and due to lock-down, is forwarded to B, and specifically, is
   forwarded to the transport address B sent the STUN request from.
   Therefore, the address is indeed a valid STUN derived transport
   address.

   The benefit of this is that it allows two clients to share the same
   TURN server for media traffic in both directions. With "normal" TURN
   usage, both clients would obtain a derived address from their own
   TURN servers. The result is that, for a single call, there are two
   bindings allocated by each side from their respective servers, and
   all four are used. With ICE, that drops to two bindings allocated
   from a single server. Of course, all four bindings are allocated
   initially. However, once one of the clients begins receiving media on
   its STUN derived address, it can deallocate its TURN resources.

   [[TODO: Include a diagram that shows this pictorially.]]

6.2 STUN on a STUN Derived Transport Address

   Consider a client A that is behind a NAT. It connects to a STUN
   server on the public side of the NAT. To do that, A binds to a local
   transport address, say 10.0.1.1:8866, and then sends a STUN request
   to the STUN server. The NAT translates the net-10 address to
   192.0.2.88:5063. Assume that the STUN server is running on 192.0.2.1
   and listening for STUN traffic on port 3478, the default STUN port.
   The STUN server sees a source IP address of 192.0.2.88:5063, and
   returns that to the client in the STUN response. The NAT forwards the
   response to the client.

   Now, the client runs a STUN server on 10.0.1.1:8866, and advertises
   that its server actually runs on 192.0.2.88:5063. Another client, B,
   sends a STUN request to this address. It sends it from a local
   transport address, 192.0.2.77:1296. When it arrives at
   192.0.2.88:5063 (on the NAT), the NAT rewrites the source address to
   10.0.1.1:8866, assuming that it is of the full-cone variety [1], or
   is restricted, and the permission for 192.0.2.77:1296 is open. This
   arrives at A's STUN server. The server observes the source address of
   192.0.2.77:1296, and generates a STUN response containing this value
   in the MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute. The STUN response is sent with a
   source address of 10.0.1.1:8866, and a destination of
   192.0.2.77:1296. This arrives at B's STUN client.

   Now, as far as B is concerned, it has obtained a new STUN derived
   transport address of 192.0.2.77:1296. Of course, this is the same
   address as the local transport address, and therefore this derived
   address is not used. However, had there been additonal NATs between B
   and A's NAT, B would end up seeing the binding allocated by that
   outermost NAT. The net result is that STUN requests sent to a STUN



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   derived address behave as normal STUN would. However, these STUN
   requests have the side-effect of creating permissions in the NATs
   which see those requests in the public to private direction. This
   turns out to be very useful for traversing restricted NATs.















































Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


7. XML Schema for ICE Messages

   This section contains the XML schema used to define the initiate,
   accept, and modify messages. Any protocol that uses ICE needs to map
   the parameters defined here into its own messages.

   Note that STUN allows both the username and password to contain the
   space character. However, usernames and passwords used with ICE
   cannot contain the space.


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
       elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
     <xs:element name="media-streams">
       <xs:annotation>
         <xs:documentation>This is the root element, which holds a series
         of media stream elements.</xs:documentation>
       </xs:annotation>
       <xs:complexType>
         <xs:sequence>
           <xs:element name="media-stream" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
             <xs:annotation>
               <xs:documentation>There are zero or more media stream
                elements. Each defines attributes for a specific media
                stream.</xs:documentation>
             </xs:annotation>
             <xs:complexType>
               <xs:sequence>
                 <xs:element name="default-address">
                   <xs:annotation>
                     <xs:documentation>The default address is used for
                     sending media before connectivity has been
                     verified.</xs:documentation>
                   </xs:annotation>
                   <xs:complexType>
                     <xs:complexContent>
                       <xs:extension base="rtp-info"/>
                     </xs:complexContent>
                   </xs:complexType>
                 </xs:element>
                 <xs:sequence>
                   <xs:element name="alternate" minOccurs="0"
                    maxOccurs="unbounded">
                     <xs:annotation>
                       <xs:documentation>Each alternate is a
                        possible point of contact.</xs:documentation>
                     </xs:annotation>



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


                     <xs:complexType>
                       <xs:complexContent>
                         <xs:extension base="transport-data">
                           <xs:attribute name="preference"
                            type="xs:double" use="required"/>
                           <xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:string"
                            use="required"/>
                         </xs:extension>
                       </xs:complexContent>
                     </xs:complexType>
                   </xs:element>
                 </xs:sequence>
               </xs:sequence>
             </xs:complexType>
           </xs:element>
         </xs:sequence>
       </xs:complexType>
     </xs:element>
     <xs:complexType name="transport-data">
       <xs:sequence>
         <xs:element name="stun-username" type="xs:string"/>
         <xs:element name="stun-password" type="xs:string"/>
         <xs:element name="derived-from" type="xs:string" minOccurs="0"/>
         <xs:element name="rtp-address" type="transport-address"/>
         <xs:element name="rtcp-address" type="transport-address"/>
       </xs:sequence>
     </xs:complexType>
     <xs:complexType name="transport-address">
       <xs:sequence>
         <xs:element name="ip-address" type="xs:string"/>
         <xs:element name="port">
           <xs:simpleType>
             <xs:restriction base="xs:integer">
               <xs:minInclusive value="1"/>
               <xs:maxInclusive value="65535"/>
             </xs:restriction>
           </xs:simpleType>
         </xs:element>
       </xs:sequence>
     </xs:complexType>
     <xs:complexType name="rtp-info">
       <xs:sequence>
         <xs:element name="rtp-address" type="transport-address"/>
         <xs:element name="rtcp-address" type="transport-address"/>
       </xs:sequence>
     </xs:complexType>
   </xs:schema>




Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


8. Examples

   TODO. Fill in with example XML message exchanges.
















































Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


9. Mapping ICE into SIP

   In this section, we show how to map ICE into SIP. This requires
   extensions to SDP.

   A new SDP attribute is defined to support ICE. It is called "alt".
   The alt attribute MUST be present within a media block of the SDP. It
   contains an alternative IP address and port (or pair of IP addresses
   and ports in the case of RTP) that the recipient of the SDP can use
   instead of the ones indicated in the m and c lines. There MAY be
   multiple alt attributes in a media block. In that case, each of them
   MUST contain a different IP address and port (or a differing pair of
   IP address and ports in the case of RTP).

   The syntax of this attribute is:


   alt-attribute = "alt" ":" id SP qvalue SP derived-from SP
                     username SP password SP
                     unicast-address SP port [unicast-address SP port]
                     ;qvalue from RFC 3261
                     ;unicast-address, port from RFC 2327
   username      = non-ws-string
   password      = non-ws-string
   id            = token
   derived-from  = ":" / id

   With the addition of the alt attribute, the mapping of the ICE
   messages to SIP/SDP is straightforward. The ICE initiate message
   corresponds to a SIP message with an SDP offer. The ICE accept
   message corresponds to a SIP message with a SDP answer. The ICE
   modify message corresponds to a SIP INVITE or UPDATE with an offer,
   and the ICE modify accept message corresponds to an INVITE or UPDATE
   response with an answer.

   Each media stream element in an ICE message maps to a media block in
   the SDP. The default address maps to the m and c lines in the SDP. If
   the ICE message indicates an RTCP address and port that are not one
   higher than that of the RTP, the SDP RTCP attribute [2] MUST be used
   to convey them.

   Each alternate element in an ICE message maps either to an alt
   attribute in the SDP, or a new media block, depending on the IP
   version of the alternate. For the highest priority IPv6 alternate, it
   is mapped into a separate media block, using the IPV grouping [3].
   Any additional IPv6 addresses are placed as alternates within this
   media block. For alternates that are IPv4 addresses, the alt
   attribute is used. The rtp-address element maps to the first



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   unicast-address and port components of the alt attribute. The
   rtcp-address element maps to the second unicast-address and port
   components of the alt attribute. Note that, if the RTCP address is
   identical to the RTP address, and the port is one higher, the second
   unicast-address and port MAY be omitted. The preference value from
   the alternate element is mapped to the q-value component of the alt
   attribute. The STUN username and password elements map to the
   username and password components of the alt attribute. When the
   derived element is present in the ICE message, it is represented in
   the derived-from component of the alt attribute. If it is not present
   in the ICE message, the derived-from component of the alt attribute
   has a value of ":".







































Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


10. Security Considerations

   ICE conveys the STUN username and password within its messages. If an
   eavesdropper should see the username and password, the worst they can
   do is send STUN requests to the host. Since STUN is a stateless
   protocol, the attacker can not alter the processing of the call or
   otherwise disrupt it. They could flood the server with BindingRequest
   packets. However, this would be no worse than if the attacker simply
   floods the host with any kind of packet.

   However, integrity protection of the username and password are more
   important. If an attacker is capable of intercepting the message and
   modifying the username or password, they could prevent connectivity
   from being established between peers, and therefore disrupt the call.
   Of course, if the attacker can intercept the message, there are many
   other ways in which they could do that, such as simply discarding the
   message. Injecting fake messages with incorect usernames and
   passwords can also disrupt a call, and does not require the
   compromise of an intermediate server. A similar attack is possible by
   modifying most of the ICE message attributes. To prevent these kinds
   of attacks, it is RECOMMENDED that the actual protocols the ICE maps
   to make use of security mechanisms that provide message integrity
   protection.




























Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


11. IANA Considerations

   This specification defines one new media attribute: alt. Its syntax
   is defined in Section 9.















































Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


12. 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 [11]. ICE is an example
   of a protocol that performs this type of function. Interestingly, the
   process for ICE is not unilateral, but bilateral, and the difference
   has a signficant impact on the issues raised by IAB. The IAB has
   mandated that any protocols developed for this purpose document a
   specific set of considerations. This section meets those
   requirements.

12.1 Problem Definition

   From RFC 3424 any UNSAF proposal must provide:

      Precise definition of a specific, limited-scope problem that is to
      be solved with the UNSAF proposal.   A short term fix should not
      be generalized to solve other problems; this is why  "short term
      fixes usually aren't".

   The specific problems being solved by ICE are:

      Provide a means for two peers to determine the set of transport
      addresses which can be used for communication.

      Provide a means for resolving many of the limitations of other
      UNSAF mechanisms by wrapping them in an additional layer of
      processing (the ICE methodology).

      Provide a means for a client to determine an address that is
      reachable by another peer with which it wishes to communicate.


12.2 Exit Strategy

   From RFC 3424, any UNSAF proposal must provide:

      Description of an exit strategy/transition plan.  The better short
      term fixes are the ones that will naturally see less and less use
      as the appropriate technology is deployed.

   ICE itself doesn't easily get phased out. However, it is useful even
   in a globally connected Internet, to serve as a means for detecting
   whether a router failure has temporarily disrupted connectivity, for
   example. However, what ICE does is help phase out other UNSAF
   mechanisms. ICE effectively selects amongst those mechanisms,



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   prioritizing ones that are better, and deprioritizing ones that are
   worse. Local IPv6 addresses are always the most preferred. As NATs
   begin to dissipate as IPv6 is introduced, derived transport addresses
   from other UNSAF mechanisms simply never get used, because higher
   priority connectivity exists. Therefore, the servers get used less
   and less, and can eventually be remove when their usage goes to zero.

   Indeed, ICE can assist in the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. It can be
   used to determine whether to use IPv6 or IPv4 when two dual-stack
   hosts communicate with SIP (IPv6 gets used). It can also allow a
   client in a v6 island to communicate with a v4 host on the other side
   of a 6to4 NAT, by allowing the v6 host to address-fix against the v4
   host, and in the process, obtain a v4 address which can be handed to
   the v4 client.

12.3 Brittleness Introduced by ICE

   From RFC3424, any UNSAF proposal must provide:

      Discussion of specific issues that may render systems more
      "brittle".  For example, approaches that involve using data at
      multiple network layers create more dependencies, increase
      debugging challenges, and make it harder to transition.

   ICE actually removes brittleness from existing UNSAF mechanisms. In
   particular, traditional STUN (the usage described in RFC 3489) has
   several points of brittleness. One of them is the discovery process
   which requires a client to try and classify the type of NAT it is
   behind. This process is error-prone. With ICE, that discovery process
   is simply not used. Rather than unilaterally assessing the validity
   of the address, its validity is dynamically determined by measuring
   connectivity to a peer. The process of determining connectivity is
   very robust. The only potential problem is that bilaterally fixed
   addresses through STUN can expire if traffic does not keep them
   alive. However, that is substantially less brittleness than the STUN
   discovery mechanisms.

   Another point of brittleness in STUN, TURN, and any other unilateral
   mechanism is its absolute reliance on an additional server. ICE makes
   use of a server for allocating unilateral addresses, but allows
   clients to directly connect if possible. Therefore, in some cases,
   the failure of a STUN or TURN server would still allow for a call to
   progress when ICE is used.

   Another point of brittleness in traditional STUN is that it assumes
   that the STUN server is on the public Internet. Interestingly, with
   ICE, that is not necessary. There can be a multitude of STUN servers
   in a variety of address realms. ICE will discover the one that has



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   provided a usable address.

   The most troubling point of brittleness in traditional STUN is that
   it doesn't work in all network topologies. In cases where there is a
   shared NAT between each client and the STUN server, traditional STUN
   may not work. With ICE, that restriction can be lifted.

   Traditional STUN also introduces some security considerations.
   Unfortunately, since ICE still uses network resident STUN servers,
   those security considerations still exist.

12.4 Requirements for a Long Term Solution

   From RFC 3424, any UNSAF proposal must provide:

      Identify requirements for longer term, sound technical solutions
      -- contribute to the process of finding the right longer term
      solution.

   Our conclusions from STUN remain unchanged. However, we feel ICE
   actually helps because we believe it can be part of the long term
   solution.

12.5 Issues with Existing NAPT Boxes

   From RFC 3424, any UNSAF proposal must provide:

      Discussion of the impact of the noted practical issues with
      existing, deployed NA[P]Ts and experience reports.

   A number of NAT boxes are now being deployed into the market which
   try and provide "generic" ALG functionality. These generic ALGs hunt
   for IP addresses,  either in text or binary form within a packet, and
   rewrite them if they match a binding. This will interfere with proper
   operation of any UNSAF mechanism, including ICE.
















Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


13. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Douglas Otis and Francois Audet for
   their comments and input.















































Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


Normative References

   [1]  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.

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

   [3]  Camarillo, G. and J. Rosenberg, "The Alternative Semantics for
        the Session Description Protocol Grouping  Framework",
        draft-camarillo-mmusic-alt-02 (work in progress), October 2003.







































Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


Informative References

   [4]   Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
         Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP:
         Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [5]   Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A. and R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming
         Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998.

   [6]   Senie, D., "Network Address Translator (NAT)-Friendly
         Application Design Guidelines", RFC 3235, January 2002.

   [7]   Srisuresh, P., Kuthan, J., Rosenberg, J., Molitor, A. and A.
         Rayhan, "Middlebox communication architecture and framework",
         RFC 3303, August 2002.

   [8]   Borella, M., Lo, J., Grabelsky, D. and G. Montenegro, "Realm
         Specific IP: Framework", RFC 3102, October 2001.

   [9]   Borella, M., Grabelsky, D., Lo, J. and K. Taniguchi, "Realm
         Specific IP: Protocol Specification", RFC 3103, October 2001.

   [10]  Yon, D., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport in SDP",
         draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-05 (work in progress), March
         2003.

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

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

   [13]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs",
         draft-ietf-ngtrans-shipworm-08 (work in progress), September
         2002.

   [14]  Rosenberg, J., "Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN)",
         draft-rosenberg-midcom-turn-03 (work in progress), October
         2003.










Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


Author's Address

   Jonathan Rosenberg
   dynamicsoft
   600 Lanidex Plaza
   Parsippany, NJ  07054
   US

   Phone: +1 973 952-5000
   EMail: jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com
   URI:   http://www.jdrosen.net








































Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION



Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft                    ICE                      February 2004


   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Acknowledgment

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











































Rosenberg               Expires August 16, 2004                [Page 37]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/