[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 RFC 6314

SIPPING Working Group                                         C. Boulton
Internet-Draft                                           NS-Technologies
Intended status: BCP                                        J. Rosenberg
Expires: December 12, 2010                                         Skype
                                                            G. Camarillo
                                                                Ericsson
                                                                F. Audet
                                                                   Skype
                                                           June 10, 2010


     Best Current Practices for NAT Traversal for Client-Server SIP
                  draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-12

Abstract

   Traversal of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the sessions
   it establishes through Network Address Translators (NATs) is a
   complex problem.  Currently there are many deployment scenarios and
   traversal mechanisms for media traffic.  This document aims to
   provide concrete recommendations and a unified method for NAT
   traversal as well as documenting corresponding flows.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 12, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Solution Technology Outline Description  . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.1.  SIP Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.1.  Symmetric Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.2.  Client Initiated Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.2.  Media Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.1.  Symmetric RTP/RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.2.  RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.3.  STUN/TURN/ICE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  NAT Traversal Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.1.  Basic NAT SIP Signaling Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.1.1.  Registration (Registrar/Edge Proxy Co-Located) . . . . 15
       5.1.2.  Registration(Registrar/Edge Proxy not Co-Located)  . . 18
       5.1.3.  Initiating a Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       5.1.4.  Receiving an Invitation to a Session . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.2.  Basic NAT Media Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       5.2.1.  Endpoint Independent NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
       5.2.2.  Address/Port-Dependent NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
   6.  IPv4-IPv6 Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
     6.1.  IPv4-IPv6 Transition for SIP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . 59
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
   9.  IAB Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67











Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


1.  Introduction

   NAT (Network Address Translators) traversal has long been identified
   as a complex problem when considered in the context of the Session
   Initiation Protocol (SIP)[RFC3261] and it's associated media such as
   Real Time Protocol (RTP)[RFC3550].  The problem is exacerbated by the
   variety of NATs that are available in the market place today and the
   large number of potential deployment scenarios.  Details of different
   NATs behavior can be found in 'NAT Behavioral Requirements for
   Unicast UDP' [RFC4787].

   The IETF has been active on many specifications for the traversal of
   NATs, including STUN[RFC5389], ICE[RFC5245], symmetric
   response[RFC3581], symmetric RTP[RFC4961], TURN[RFC5766], SIP
   Outbound[RFC5626], SDP attribute for RTCP[RFC3605], Multiplexing RTP
   Data and Control Packets on a Single Port[RFC5761] and others.  These
   each represent a part of the solution, but none of them gives the
   overall context for how the NATs traversal problem is decomposed and
   solved through this collection of specifications.  This document
   serves to meet that need.

   This document provides a definitive set of 'Best Common Practices' to
   demonstrate the traversal of SIP and its associated media through NAT
   devices.  The document does not propose any new functionality but
   does draw on existing solutions for both core SIP signaling and media
   traversal (as defined in Section 4).

   The best practices described in this document are for traditional
   "client-server"-style SIP.  This term refers to the traditional use
   of the SIP protocol where User Agents talk to a series of
   intermediaries on a path to connect to a remote User Agent.  It seems
   likely that other groups using SIP, for example "Peer-to-Peer-
   SIP(P2PSIP), will recommend these same practices between a P2PSIP
   client and a P2PSIP peer, but will recommend different practices for
   use between peers in a peer-to-peer network.

   The draft is split into distinct sections as follows:

   1.  A clear definition of the problem statement.

   2.  Description of proposed solutions for both SIP protocol signaling
       and media signaling.

   3.  A set of basic and advanced flow scenarios.







Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


2.  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 [RFC2119].

   It should be noted that the use of the term 'Endpoint Independent
   NAT' in this document refers to a NAT that is both 'Endpoint
   Independent Filtering NAT' and 'Endpoint Independent Mapping NAT' per
   RFC 4787 [RFC4787] definition.









































Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


3.  Problem Statement

   The traversal of SIP through NATs can be split into two categories
   that both require attention - The core SIP signaling and associated
   media traversal.  This document assumes NATs that do not contain SIP-
   aware Application Layer Gateways(ALG), which makes much of the issues
   discussed in the document not applicable.  ALGs have limitations (as
   per RFC 4787 [RFC4787]/section 7, RFC 3424 [RFC3424], and [RFC5245]/
   section 18.6) and experience shows they can have an adverse impact on
   the functionality of SIP.  This includes problems such as requiring
   the media and signaling to traverse the same device and not working
   with encrypted signaling and/or payload.

   It should also be noted that Session Border Controllers (SBC) doing
   'hosted NAT traversal' also make many of the discussions in this
   document moot.  More information can be obtained from [RFC5853] and
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-media-path-middleboxes].

   The core SIP signaling has a number of issues when traversing through
   NATs.

   Normal SIP response routing over UDP causes the response to be
   delivered to the source IP address specified in the topmost Via
   header, or the "received" parameter of the topmost Via header.  The
   port is extracted from the SIP 'Via' header to complete the IP
   address/port combination for returning the SIP response.  While the
   destination for the response is correct, the port contained in the
   SIP 'Via' header represents the listening port of the originating
   client and not the port representing the open pin hole on the NAT.
   This results in responses being sent back to the NAT but to a port
   that is likely not open for SIP traffic.  The SIP response will then
   be dropped at the NAT.  This is illustrated in Figure 1 which depicts
   a SIP response being returned to port 5060.


















Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


     Private                       NAT                         Public
     Network                        |                          Network
                                    |
                                    |
     --------     SIP Request       |open port 10923           --------
    |        |-------------------->--->-----------------------|        |
    |        |                      |                         |        |
    | Client |                      |port 5060   SIP Response | Proxy  |
    |        |                      x<------------------------|        |
    |        |                      |                         |        |
     --------                       |                          --------
                                    |
                                    |
                                    |


                         Figure 1: Failed Response

   Secondly, there are two cases where new requests re-use existing
   connections.  The first is when using a reliable, connection
   orientated transport protocol such as TCP, SIP has an inherent
   mechanism that results in SIP responses reusing the connection that
   was created/used for the corresponding transactional request.  The
   SIP protocol does not provide a mechanism that allows new requests
   generated in the reverse direction of the originating client to use,
   for example, the existing TCP connection created between the client
   and the server during registration.  This results in the registered
   contact address not being bound to the "connection" in the case of
   TCP.  Requests are then blocked at the NAT, as illustrated in
   Figure 2.  The second case is when unreliable transport protocols
   such as UDP where external NAT mappings need to be re-used to reach a
   SIP entity on the private side of the network.


     Private                       NAT                         Public
     Network                        |                          Network
                                    |
                                    |
     -------- (UAC 8023)    REGISTER/Response       (UAS 5060) --------
    |        |-------------------->---<-----------------------|        |
    |        |                      |                         |        |
    | Client |                      |5060  INVITE   (UAC 8015)| Proxy  |
    |        |                      x<------------------------|        |
    |        |                      |                         |        |
     --------                       |                          --------
                                    |
                                    |
                                    |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


                         Figure 2: Failed Request

   In Figure 2 the original REGISTER request is sent from the client on
   port 8023 and received by the proxy on port 5060, establishing a
   connection and opening a pin-hole in the NAT.  The generation of a
   new request from the proxy results in a request destined for the
   registered entity (Contact IP address) which is not reachable from
   the public network.  This results in the new SIP request attempting
   to create a connection to a private network address.  This problem
   would be solved if the original connection was re-used.  While this
   problem has been discussed in the context of connection orientated
   protocols such as TCP, the problem exists for SIP signaling using any
   transport protocol.  The impact of connection reuse of connection
   orientated transports (TCP, TLS, etc) is discussed in more detail in
   the connection reuse specification[I-D.ietf-sip-connect-reuse].  The
   approach proposed for this problem in Section 4 of this document is
   relevant for all SIP signaling in conjunction with connection reuse,
   regardless of the transport protocol.

   NAT policy can dictate that connections should be closed after a
   period of inactivity.  This period of inactivity may vary from a
   number seconds to hours.  SIP signaling can not be relied upon to
   keep alive connections for the following two reasons.  Firstly, SIP
   entities can sometimes have no signaling traffic for long periods of
   time which has the potential to exceed the inactivity timer, and this
   can lead to problems where endpoints are not available to receive
   incoming requests as the connection has been closed.  Secondly, if a
   low inactivity timer is specified, SIP signaling is not appropriate
   as a keep-alive mechanism as it has the potential to add a large
   amount of traffic to the network which uses up valuable resource and
   also requires processing at a SIP stack, which is also a waste of
   processing resources.

   Media associated with SIP calls also has problems traversing NAT.
   RTP [RFC3550] runs over UDP and is one of the most common media
   transport types used in SIP signaling.  Negotiation of RTP occurs
   with a SIP session establishment using the Session Description
   Protocol(SDP) [RFC4566] and a SIP offer/answer exchange[RFC3264].
   During a SIP offer/answer exchange an IP address and port combination
   are specified by each client in a session as a means of receiving
   media such as RTP.  The problem arises when a client advertises its
   address to receive media and it exists in a private network that is
   not accessible from outside the NAT.  Figure 3 illustrates this
   problem.







Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


                 NAT             Public Network           NAT
                  |                                        |
                  |                                        |
                  |                                        |
     --------     |            SIP Signaling Session       |   --------
    |        |---------------------->Proxy<-------------------|        |
    |        |    |                                        |  |        |
    | Client |    |                                        |  | Client |
    |   A    |>=====>RTP>==Unknown Address==>X             |  |   B    |
    |        |    |             X<==Unknown Address==<RTP<===<|        |
     --------     |                                        |   --------
                  |                                        |
                  |                                        |
                  |                                        |


                          Figure 3: Failed Media

   The connection addresses of the clients behind the NATs will
   nominally contain a private IPv4 address that is not routable across
   the public Internet.  Exacerbating matters even more would be the
   tendency of Client A to send media to a destination address it
   received in the signaling confirmation message -- an address that may
   actually correspond to a host within the private network who is
   suddenly faced with incoming RTP packets (likewise, Client B may send
   media to a host within its private network who did not solicit these
   packets.)  And finally, to complicate the problem even further, a
   number of different NAT topologies with different default behaviors
   increases the difficulty of arriving at a unified approach.  This
   problem exists for all media transport protocols that might be NATted
   (e.g., TCP, UDP, SCTP, DCCP).

   In general the problems associated with NAT traversal can be
   categorized as follows.

   For signaling:

   o  Responses do not re-use the NAT mapping and filtering entries
      created by the request.

   o  Inbound requests are filtered out by the NAT because there is no
      long-term connection between the client and the proxy.

   For media:

   o  Each endpoint has a variety of addresses that can be used to reach
      it (e.g., native interface address, public NATted address).  In
      different situations, a different pair of (local endpoint, remote



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


      endpoint) addresses should be used, and it is not clear when to
      use which pair.

   o  Many NATs filter inbound packets if the local endpoint has not
      recently sent an outbound packet to the sender.

   o  Classic RTCP usage is to run RTCP on the next highest port.
      However, NATs do not necessarily preserve port adjacency.

   o  Classic RTP and RTCP usage is to use different 5-tuples for
      traffic in each direction.  Though not really a problem, doing
      this through NATs is more work than using the same 5-tuple in both
      directions.






































Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


4.  Solution Technology Outline Description

   As mentioned previously, the traversal of SIP through existing NATs
   can be divided into two discrete problem areas: getting the SIP
   signaling across NATs, and enabling media as specified by SDP in a
   SIP offer/answer exchange to flow between endpoints.

4.1.  SIP Signaling

   SIP signaling has two areas that result in transactional failure when
   traversing through NATs, as described in Section 3 of this document.
   The remaining sub-sections describe appropriate solutions that result
   in SIP signaling traversal through NATs, regardless of transport
   protocol.  It is RECOMMENDED that SIP compliant entities follow the
   guidelines presented in this section to enable traversal of SIP
   signaling through NATs.

4.1.1.  Symmetric Response

   As described in Section 3 of this document, when using an unreliable
   transport protocol such as UDP, SIP responses are sent to the IP
   address and port combination contained in the SIP 'Via' header field
   (or default port for the appropriate transport protocol if not
   present).  Figure 4 illustrates the response traversal through the
   open pin hole using Symmetric techniques defined in RFC 3581
   [RFC3581].


     Private                        NAT                       Public
     Network                         |                        Network
                                     |
                                     |
     --------                        |                        --------
    |        |                       |                       |        |
    |        |send request---------------------------------->|        |
    | Client |<---------------------------------send response|  SIP   |
    |   A    |                       |                       | Proxy  |
    |        |                       |                       |        |
     --------                        |                        --------
                                     |
                                     |
                                     |

                       Figure 4: Symmetric Response

   The outgoing request from Client A opens a pin hole in the NAT.  The
   SIP Proxy would normally respond to the port available in the SIP Via
   header, as illustrated in Figure 1.  The SIP Proxy honours the



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   'rport' parameter in the SIP Via header and routes the response to
   port from which it was sent.  The exact functionality for this method
   of response traversal is called 'Symmetric Response' and the details
   are documented in RFC 3581 [RFC3581].  Additional requirements are
   imposed on SIP entities in RFC 3581 [RFC3581] such as listening and
   sending SIP requests/responses from the same port.

4.1.2.  Client Initiated Connections

   The second problem with SIP signaling, as defined in Section 3 and
   illustrated in Figure 2, is to allow incoming requests to be properly
   routed.

   Guidelines for devices such as User Agents that can only generate
   outbound connections through NATs are documented in 'Managing Client
   Initiated Connections in the Session Initiation
   Protocol(SIP)'[RFC5626].  The document provides techniques that use a
   unique User Agent instance identifier (instance-id) in association
   with a flow identifier (reg-id).  The combination of the two
   identifiers provides a key to a particular connection (both UDP and
   TCP) that is stored in association with registration bindings.  On
   receiving an incoming request to a SIP Address-Of-Record (AOR), a
   proxy/registrar routes to the associated flow created by the
   registration and thus a route through NATs.  It also provides a
   keepalive mechanism for clients to keep NATs bindings alive.  This is
   achieved by multiplexing a ping/pong mechanism over the SIP signaling
   connection (STUN for UDP and CRLF/operating system keepalive for
   reliable transports like TCP).  Usage of [RFC5626] is RECOMMENDED.
   This mechanism is not transport specific and should be used for any
   transport protocol.

   Even if the SIP Outbound draft is not used, clients generating SIP
   requests SHOULD use the same IP address and port (i.e., socket) for
   both transmission and receipt of SIP messages.  Doing so allows for
   the vast majority of industry provided solutions to properly
   function(e.g., SBC hosted NAT traversal).  Deployments should also
   consider the mechanism described in the Connection
   Reuse[I-D.ietf-sip-connect-reuse] specification for routing bi-
   directional messages securely between trusted SIP Proxy servers.

4.2.  Media Traversal

   The issues of media traversal through NATs is not straight forward
   and requires the combination of a number of traversal methodologies.
   The technologies outlined in the remainder of this section provide
   the required solution set.





Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


4.2.1.  Symmetric RTP/RTCP

   The primary problem identified in Section 3 of this document is that
   internal IP address/port combinations can not be reached from the
   public side of NATs.  In the case of media such as RTP, this will
   result in no audio traversing NATs (as illustrated in Figure 3).  To
   overcome this problem, a technique called 'Symmetric RTP/
   RTCP'[RFC4961] can be used.  This involves a SIP endpoint both
   sending and receiving RTP/RTCP traffic from the same IP address/port
   combination.  When operating behind a NAT and using the 'latching'
   technique described in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-media-path-middleboxes], SIP
   user agents MUST implement 'Symmetric RTP/RTCP'.  This allows
   traversal of RTP across the NAT.

4.2.2.  RTCP

   Normal practice when selecting a port for defining RTP Control
   Protocol (RTCP) [RFC3550] is for consecutive order numbering (i.e
   select an incremented port for RTCP from that used for RTP).  This
   assumption causes RTCP traffic to break when traversing certain types
   of NATs due to various reasons (e.g., already-allocated port,
   randomized port allocation).  To combat this problem a specific
   address and port need to be specified in the SDP rather than relying
   on such assumptions.  RFC 3605 [RFC3605] defines an SDP attribute
   that is included to explicitly specify transport connection
   information for RTCP so a separate, explicit NAT binding can be set
   up for the purpose.  The address details can be obtained using any
   appropriate method including those detailed in this section (e.g.
   STUN, TURN, ICE).

   A further enhancement to RFC 3605 [RFC3605] is defined in [RFC5761]
   which specifies 'muxing' both RTP and RTCP on the same IP/PORT
   combination.

4.2.3.  STUN/TURN/ICE

   ICE, STUN and TURN are a suite of 3 inter-related protocols that
   combine to provide a complete media traversal solution for NATs.  The
   following sections provide details of each component part.

4.2.3.1.  STUN

   Session Traversal Utilities for NAT or STUN is defined in RFC 5389
   [RFC5389].  STUN is a lightweight tool kit and protocol that provides
   details of the external IP address/port combination used by the NAT
   device to represent the internal entity on the public facing side of
   NATs.  On learning of such an external representation, a client can
   use it accordingly as the connection address in SDP to provide NAT



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   traversal.  Using terminology defined in the draft 'NAT Behavioral
   Requirements for Unicast UDP' [RFC4787], STUN does work with
   'Endpoint Independent Mapping' but does not work with either 'Address
   Dependent Mapping' or 'Address and Port Dependent Mapping' type NATs.
   Using STUN with either of the previous two NATs mappings to probe for
   the external IP address/port representation will provide a different
   result to that required for traversal by an alternative SIP entity.
   The IP address/port combination deduced for the STUN server would be
   blocked for RTP packets from the remote SIP user agent.

   As mentioned in Section 4.1.2, STUN is also used as a client-to-
   server keep-alive mechanism to refresh NAT bindings.

4.2.3.2.  TURN

   As described in the Section 4.2.3.1, the STUN protocol does not work
   for UDP traversal through certain identified NAT mappings.
   'Traversal Using Relays around NAT' is a usage of the STUN protocol
   for deriving (from a TURN server) an address that will be used to
   relay packets towards a client.  TURN provides an external address
   (globally routable) at a TURN server that will act as a media relay
   which attempts to allow traffic to reach the associated internal
   address.  The full details of the TURN specification are defined in
   [RFC5766].  A TURN service will almost always provide media traffic
   to a SIP entity but it is RECOMMENDED that this method would only be
   used as a last resort and not as a general mechanism for NAT
   traversal.  This is because using TURN has high performance costs
   when relaying media traffic and can lead to unwanted latency.

4.2.3.3.  ICE

   Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) is the RECOMMENDED
   method for traversal of existing NATs if Symmetric RTP and media
   latching is not sufficient.  ICE is a methodology for using existing
   technologies such as STUN, TURN and any other UNSAF[RFC3424]
   compliant protocol to provide a unified solution.  This is achieved
   by obtaining as many representative IP address/port combinations as
   possible using technologies such as STUN/TURN (*note - an ICE
   endpoint can also use other mechanisms (e.g., NAT-
   PMP[I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp], UPnP IGD[UPnP-IGD]) to learn public IP
   addresses and ports, and populate a=candidate lines with that
   information).  Once the addresses are accumulated, they are all
   included in the SDP exchange in a new media attribute called
   'candidate'.  Each 'candidate' SDP attribute entry has detailed
   connection information including a media address, priority and
   transport protocol.  The appropriate IP address/port combinations are
   used in the order specified by the priority.  A client compliant to
   the ICE specification will then locally run STUN servers on all



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   addresses being advertised using ICE.  Each instance will undertake
   connectivity checks to ensure that a client can successfully receive
   media on the advertised address.  Only connections that pass the
   relevant connectivity checks are used for media exchange.  The full
   details of the ICE methodology are contained in [RFC5245].














































Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


5.  NAT Traversal Scenarios

   This section of the document includes detailed NAT traversal
   scenarios for both SIP signaling and the associated media.
   Signalling NAT traversal is achieved using [RFC5626].

5.1.  Basic NAT SIP Signaling Traversal

   The following sub-sections concentrate on SIP signaling traversal of
   NATs.  The scenarios include traversal for both reliable and un-
   reliable transport protocols.

5.1.1.  Registration (Registrar/Edge Proxy Co-Located)

   The set of scenarios in this section document basic signaling
   traversal of a SIP REGISTER method through NATs.

5.1.1.1.  UDP


                                               Registrar/
            Bob                NAT             Edge Proxy
             |                  |                  |
             |(1) REGISTER      |                  |
             |----------------->|                  |
             |                  |                  |
             |                  |(1) REGISTER      |
             |                  |----------------->|
             |                  |                  |
             |*************************************|
             |  Create Outbound Connection Tuple   |
             |*************************************|
             |                  |                  |
             |                  |(2) 200 OK        |
             |                  |<-----------------|
             |                  |                  |
             |(2) 200 OK        |                  |
             |<-----------------|                  |
             |                  |                  |


                        Figure 5: UDP Registration

   In this example the client sends a SIP REGISTER request through a
   NAT.  The client will include an 'rport' parameter as described in
   Section 4.1.1 of this document for allowing traversal of UDP
   responses.  The original request as illustrated in (1) in Figure 5 is
   a standard SIP REGISTER message:



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   Message 1:

   REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.2;rport;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=7F94778B653B
   To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
   Call-ID: 16CB75F21C70
   CSeq: 1 REGISTER
   Supported: path, outbound
   Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.2 >;reg-id=1
       ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-AABBCCDDEEFF>"
   Content-Length: 0


   This SIP transaction now generates a SIP 200 OK response, as depicted
   in (2) from Figure 5:

   Message 2:

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.2;rport=8050;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7;
        received=192.0.2.4
   From: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=7F94778B653B
   To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=6AF99445E44A
   Call-ID: 16CB75F21C70
   CSeq: 1 REGISTER
   Supported: path, outbound
   Require: outbound
   Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.2 >;reg-id=1;expires=3600
        ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-AABBCCDDEEFF>"
   Content-Length: 0


   The response will be sent to the address appearing in the 'received'
   parameter of the SIP 'Via' header (address 192.0.2.4).  The response
   will not be sent to the port deduced from the SIP 'Via' header, as
   per standard SIP operation but will be sent to the value that has
   been stamped in the 'rport' parameter of the SIP 'Via' header (port
   8050).  For the response to successfully traverse the NAT, all of the
   conventions defined in RFC 3581 [RFC3581] MUST be obeyed.  Make note
   of both the 'reg-id' and 'sip.instance' contact header parameters.
   They are used to establish an Outbound connection tuple as defined in
   [RFC5626].  The connection tuple creation is clearly shown in
   Figure 5.  This ensures that any inbound request that causes a
   registration lookup will result in the re-use of the connection path
   established by the registration.  This exonerates the need to
   manipulate contact header URIs to represent a globally routable



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   address as perceived on the public side of a NAT.

5.1.1.2.  Connection Oriented Transport



                                               Registrar/
            Bob                NAT             Edge Proxy
             |                  |                  |
             |(1) REGISTER      |                  |
             |----------------->|                  |
             |                  |                  |
             |                  |(1) REGISTER      |
             |                  |----------------->|
             |                  |                  |
             |*************************************|
             |  Create Outbound Connection Tuple   |
             |*************************************|
             |                  |                  |
             |                  |(2) 200 OK        |
             |                  |<-----------------|
             |                  |                  |
             |(2) 200 OK        |                  |
             |<-----------------|                  |
             |                  |                  |


                                 Figure 6

   Traversal of SIP REGISTER requests/responses using a reliable,
   connection orientated protocol such as TCP does not require any
   additional core SIP signaling extensions, beyond the procedures
   defined in [RFC5626].  SIP responses will re-use the connection
   created for the initial REGISTER request, (1) from Figure 6:

   Message 1:


   REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.2;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=7F94778B653B
   To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
   Call-ID: 16CB75F21C70
   CSeq: 1 REGISTER
   Supported: path, outbound
   Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.2;transport=tcp>;reg-id=1
        ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-AABBCCDDEEFF>"



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   Content-Length: 0

   Message 2:


   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.2;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
   From: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=7F94778B653B
   To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=6AF99445E44A
   Call-ID: 16CB75F21C70
   CSeq: 1 REGISTER
   Supported: path, outbound
   Require: outbound
   Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.2;transport=tcp>;reg-id=1;expires=3600
        ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-AABBCCDDEEFF>"
   Content-Length: 0

   This example was included to show the inclusion of the +sip.instance
   Contact header parameter as defined in the SIP Outbound specification
   [RFC5626].  This creates an association tuple as described in the
   previous example for future inbound requests directed at the newly
   created registration binding with the only difference that the
   association is with a TCP connection, not a UDP pin hole binding.

5.1.2.  Registration(Registrar/Edge Proxy not Co-Located)

   This section demonstrates traversal mechanisms when the Registrar
   component is not co-located with the edge proxy element.  The
   procedures described in this section are identical, regardless of
   transport protocol and so only one example will be documented in the
   form of TCP.




















Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


      Bob               NAT              Edge Proxy         Registrar
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(1) REGISTER      |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(1) REGISTER      |                  |
       |                  |----------------->|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |(2) REGISTER      |
       |                  |                  |----------------->|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |*************************************|                  |
       |  Create Outbound Connection Tuple   |                  |
       |*************************************|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |(3) 200 OK        |
       |                  |                  |<-----------------|
       |                  |(4)200 OK         |                  |
       |                  |<-----------------|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(4)200 OK         |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |


          Figure 7: Registration(Registrar/Proxy not Co-Located)

   This scenario builds on the previous example contained in
   Section 5.1.1.2.  The primary difference being that the REGISTER
   request is routed onwards from a Proxy Server to a separated
   Registrar.  The important message to note is (1) in Figure 7.  The
   Edge proxy, on receiving a REGISTER request that contains a
   'sip.instance' media feature tag, forms a unique flow identifier
   token as discussed in [RFC5626].  At this point, the proxy server
   routes the SIP REGISTER message to the Registrar.  The proxy will
   create the connection tuple as described in SIP Outbound at the same
   moment as the co-located example, but for subsequent messages to
   arrive at the Proxy, the proxy needs to indicate its need to remain
   in the SIP signaling path.  To achieve this the proxy inserts to
   REGISTER message (2) a SIP PATH extension header, as defined in RFC
   3327 [RFC3327].  The previously created flow association token is
   inserted in a position within the Path header where it can easily be
   retrieved at a later point when receiving messages to be routed to
   the registration binding (in this case the user part of the SIP URI).
   The REGISTER message of (1) includes a SIP Route header for the edge
   proxy.

   Message 1:



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.2;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=7F94778B653B
   To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
   Call-ID: 16CB75F21C70
   CSeq: 1 REGISTER
   Supported: path, outbound
   Route: <sip:ep1.example.com;lr>
   Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.2;transport=tcp>;reg-id=1
        ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-AABBCCDDEEFF>"
   Content-Length: 0


   When proxied in (2) looks as follows:

   Message 2:

   REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP ep1.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKnuiqisi
   Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.2;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
   Max-Forwards: 69
   From: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=7F94778B653B
   To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
   Call-ID: 16CB75F21C70
   CSeq: 1 REGISTER
   Supported: path, outbound
   Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.2;transport=tcp>;reg-id=1
        ;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-1000-8000-AABBCCDDEEFF>"
   Path: <sip:VskztcQ/S8p4WPbOnHbuyh5iJvJIW3ib@ep1.example.com;lr;ob>
   Content-Length: 0


   This REGISTER request results in the Path header being stored along
   with the AOR and it's associated binding at the Registrar.  The URI
   contained in the Path header will be inserted as a pre-loaded SIP
   'Route' header into any request that arrives at the Registrar and is
   directed towards the associated AOR binding.  This all but guarantees
   that all requests for the new registration will be forwarded to the
   Edge Proxy.  In our example, the user part of the SIP 'Path' header
   URI that was inserted by the Edge Proxy contains the unique token
   identifying the flow to the client.  On receiving subsequent
   requests, the edge proxy will examine the user part of the pre-loaded
   SIP 'route' header and extract the unique flow token for use in its
   connection tuple comparison, as defined in the SIP Outbound
   specification [RFC5626].  An example which builds on this scenario
   (showing an inbound request to the AOR) is detailed in
   Section 5.1.4.2 of this document.



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


5.1.3.  Initiating a Session

   This section covers basic SIP signaling when initiating a call from
   behind a NAT.

5.1.3.1.  UDP

   Initiating a call using UDP (the Edge Proxy and Authoritative Proxy
   functionality are co-located).










































Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


                                          Edge Proxy/
       Bob                NAT            Auth. Proxy          Alice
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |(1) INVITE        |                  |                 |
        |----------------->|                  |                 |
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |                  |(1) INVITE        |                 |
        |                  |----------------->|                 |
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |                  |                  |(2) INVITE       |
        |                  |                  |---------------->|
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |                  |                  |(3)180 RINGING   |
        |                  |                  |<----------------|
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |                  |(4)180 RINGING    |                 |
        |                  |<-----------------|                 |
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |(4)180 RINGING    |                  |                 |
        |<-----------------|                  |                 |
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |                  |                  |(5)200 OK        |
        |                  |                  |<----------------|
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |                  |(6)200 OK         |                 |
        |                  |<-----------------|                 |
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |(6)200 OK         |                  |                 |
        |<-----------------|                  |                 |
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |(7)ACK            |                  |                 |
        |----------------->|                  |                 |
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |                  |(7)ACK            |                 |
        |                  |----------------->|                 |
        |                  |                  |                 |
        |                  |                  |(8) ACK          |
        |                  |                  |---------------->|
        |                  |                  |                 |


                   Figure 8: Initiating a Session - UDP

   The initiating client generates an INVITE request that is to be sent
   through the NAT to a Proxy server.  The INVITE message is represented
   in Figure 8 by (1) and is as follows:

   Message 1:



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   INVITE sip:alice@a.example SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.2;rport;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=ldw22z
   To: Alice <sip:alice@a.example>
   Call-ID: 95KGsk2V/Eis9LcpBYy3
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Supported: outbound
   Route: <sip:ep1.example.com;lr>
   Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.2;ob>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: ...

   [SDP not shown]

   There are a number of points to note with this message:

   1.  Firstly, as with the registration example in Section 5.1.1.1,
       responses to this request will not automatically pass back
       through a NAT and so the SIP 'Via' header 'rport' is included as
       described in the 'Symmetric response' Section 4.1.1 and defined
       in RFC 3581 [RFC3581].

   2.  Secondly, the contact inserted contains to ensure that all new
       requests will be sent to the same flow.  Alternatively, a GRUU
       might have been used.  See 4.3/[RFC5626].

   In (2), the proxy inserts itself in the Via, adds the rport port
   number in the previous Via header, adds the received parameter in the
   previous Via, removes the Route header, and inserts a Record-Route
   with a token.

   Message 2:


















Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


 INVITE sip:alice@192.0.2.4 SIP/2.0
 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ep1.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKnuiqisi
 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.2;rport=8050;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7;
      received=192.0.2.14
 Max-Forwards: 69
 From: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=ldw22z
 To: Alice <sip:alice@a.example>
 Call-ID: 95KGsk2V/Eis9LcpBYy3
 CSeq: 1 INVITE
 Supported: outbound
 Record-Route: <sip:3yJEbr1GYZK9cPYk5Snocez6DzO7w+AX@ep1.example.com;lr>
 Contact: <sip:bob@192.0.2.2;ob>
 Content-Type: application/sdp
 Content-Length: ...

 [SDP not shown]

5.1.3.2.  Connection-oriented Transport

   When using a reliable transport such as TCP the call flow and
   procedures for traversing a NAT are almost identical to those
   described in Section 5.1.3.1.  The primary difference when using
   reliable transport protocols is that Symmetric response[RFC3581] are
   not required for SIP responses to traverse a NAT.  RFC 3261[RFC3261]
   defines procedures for SIP response messages to be sent back on the
   same connection on which the request arrived.  See section 9.5/
   [RFC5626] for an example call flow of an outgoing call.

5.1.4.  Receiving an Invitation to a Session

   This section details scenarios where a client behind a NAT receives
   an inbound request through a NAT.  These scenarios build on the
   previous registration scenario from Section 5.1.1 and Section 5.1.2
   in this document.

5.1.4.1.  Registrar/Proxy Co-located

   The SIP signaling on the interior of the network (behind the user's
   proxy) is not impacted directly by the transport protocol and so only
   one example scenario is necessary.  The example uses UDP and follows
   on from the registration installed in the example from
   Section 5.1.1.1.









Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


                                           Edge Proxy
        Bob                NAT            Auth. Proxy          Alice
         |                  |                  |                 |
         |*******************************************************|
         |           Registration Binding Installed in           |
         |                    section 5.1.1.1                    |
         |*******************************************************|
         |                  |                  |                 |
         |                  |                  |(1)INVITE        |
         |                  |                  |<----------------|
         |                  |                  |                 |
         |                  |(2)INVITE         |                 |
         |                  |<-----------------|                 |
         |                  |                  |                 |
         |(2)INVITE         |                  |                 |
         |<-----------------|                  |                 |
         |                  |                  |                 |
         |                  |                  |                 |


              Figure 9: Receiving an Invitation to a Session

   An INVITE request arrives at the Authoritative Proxy with a
   destination pointing to the AOR of that inserted in Section 5.1.1.1.
   The message is illustrated by (1) in Figure 9 and looks as follows:


   INVITE sip:bob@example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bK74huHJ37d
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: External Alice <sip:alice@example.com>;tag=02935
   To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
   Call-ID: klmvCxVWGp6MxJp2T2mb
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:alice@192.0.2.4>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: ..

   [SDP not shown]

   The INVITE request matches the registration binding previously
   installed at the Registrar and the INVITE request-URI is re-written
   to the selected onward address.  The proxy then examines the request
   URI of the INVITE and compares with its list of connection tuples.
   It uses the incoming AOR to commence the check for associated open
   connections/mappings.  Once matched, the proxy checks to see if the
   unique instance identifier (+sip.instance) associated with the
   binding equals the same instance identifier associated with that



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   connection tuple.  The request is then dispatched on the appropriate
   binding.  This is message (2) from Figure 9 and is as follows:


   INVITE sip:bob@192.0.2.2 SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ep1.example.com;branch=z9hG4kmlds893jhsd
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bK74huHJ37d
   Max-Forwards: 69
   From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>;tag=02935
   To: client bob <sip:bob@example.com>
   Call-ID: klmvCxVWGp6MxJp2T2mb
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:alice@192.0.2.4>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: ..


   [SDP not shown]

   It is a standard SIP INVITE request with no additional functionality.
   The major difference being that this request will not be forwarded to
   the address specified in the Request-URI, as standard SIP rules would
   enforce but will be sent on the flow associated with the registration
   binding (look-up procedures in RFC 3263 [RFC3263] are overridden).
   This then allows the original connection/mapping from the initial
   registration process to be re-used.

5.1.4.2.  Edge Proxy/Authoritative Proxy Not Co-located

   The core SIP signaling associated with this call flow is not impacted
   directly by the transport protocol and so only one example scenario
   is necessary.  The example uses UDP and follows on from the
   registration installed in the example from Section 5.1.2.


















Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


    Bob            NAT         Edge Proxy    Auth. Proxy       Alice
     |              |              |              |              |
     |***********************************************************|
     |            Registration Binding Installed in              |
     |                      section 5.1.2                        |
     |***********************************************************|
     |              |              |              |              |
     |              |              |              |(1)INVITE     |
     |              |              |              |<-------------|
     |              |              |              |              |
     |              |              |(2)INVITE     |              |
     |              |              |<-------------|              |
     |              |              |              |              |
     |              |(3)INVITE     |              |              |
     |              |<-------------|              |              |
     |              |              |              |              |
     |(3)INVITE     |              |              |              |
     |<-------------|              |              |              |
     |              |              |              |              |
     |              |              |              |              |



                 Figure 10: Registrar/Proxy Not Co-located

   An INVITE request arrives at the Authoritative Proxy with a
   destination pointing to the AOR of that inserted in Section 5.1.2.
   The message is illustrated by (1) in Figure 10 and looks as follows:


   INVITE sip:bob@example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bK74huHJ37d
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com>;tag=02935
   To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
   Call-ID: klmvCxVWGp6MxJp2T2mb
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:external@192.0.2.4>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: ..

   [SDP not shown]

   The INVITE request matches the registration binding previously
   installed at the Registrar and the INVITE request-URI is re-written
   to the selected onward address.  The Registrar also identifies that a
   SIP PATH header was associated with the registration and pushes it
   into the INVITE request in the form of a pre-loaded SIP Route header.



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   It then forwards the request on to the proxy identified in the SIP
   Route header as shown in (2) from Figure 10:


   INVITE sip:bob@client.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP proxy.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK74fmljnc
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bK74huHJ37d
   Route: <sip:VskztcQ/S8p4WPbOnHbuyh5iJvJIW3ib@ep1.example.com;lr;ob>
   Max-Forwards: 69
   From: Alice <sip:alice@example.net>;tag=02935
   To: Bob <sip:Bob@example.com>
   Call-ID: klmvCxVWGp6MxJp2T2mb
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:alice@192.0.2.4>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: ..

   [SDP not shown]

   The request then arrives at the outbound proxy for the client.  The
   proxy examines the request URI of the INVITE in conjunction with the
   flow token that it previously inserted into the user part of the PATH
   header SIP URI (which now appears in the user part of the Route
   header in the incoming INVITE).  The proxy locates the appropriate
   flow and sends the message to the client, as shown in (3) from
   Figure 10:


 INVITE sip:bob@192.0.2.2 SIP/2.0
 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP ep1.example.com;branch=z9hG4nsi30dncmnl
 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP proxy.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK74fmljnc
 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.4;branch=z9hG4bK74huHJ37d
 Record-Route: <sip:VskztcQ/S8p4WPbOnHbuyh5iJvJIW3ib@ep1.example.com;lr>
 Max-Forwards: 68
 From: Alice <sip:Alice@example.net>;tag=02935
 To: bob <sip:bob@example.com>
 Call-ID: klmvCxVWGp6MxJp2T2mb
 CSeq: 1 INVITE
 Contact: <sip:alice@192.0.2.4>
 Content-Type: application/sdp
 Content-Length: ..

 [SDP not shown]

   It is a standard SIP INVITE request with no additional functionality
   at the originator.  The major difference being that this request will
   not follow the address specified in the Request-URI when it reaches
   the outbound proxy, as standard SIP rules would enforce but will be



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   sent on the flow associated with the registration binding as
   indicated in the Route header(look-up procedures in RFC 3263
   [RFC3263] are overridden).  This then allows the original connection/
   mapping from the initial registration to the outbound proxy to be re-
   used.

5.2.  Basic NAT Media Traversal

   This section provides example scenarios to demonstrate basic media
   traversal using the techniques outlined earlier in this document.

   In the flow diagrams STUN messages have been annotated for simplicity
   as follows:

   o  The "Src" attribute represents the source transport address of the
      message.

   o  The "Dest" attribute represents the destination transport address
      of the message.

   o  The "Map" attribute represents the server reflexive (XOR-MAPPED-
      ADDRESS STUN attribute) transport address.

   o  The "Rel" attribute represents the relayed (RELAY-ADDRESS STUN
      attribute) transport address.

   The meaning of each STUN attribute is extensively explained in the
   core STUN[RFC5389] and TURN [RFC5766] specifications.

   A number of ICE SDP attributes have also been included in some of the
   examples.  Detailed information on individual attributes can be
   obtained from the core ICE specification[RFC5245].

   The examples also contain a mechanism for representing transport
   addresses.  It would be confusing to include representations of
   network addresses in the call flows and make them hard to follow.
   For this reason network addresses will be represented using the
   following annotation.  The first component will contain the
   representation of the client responsible for the address.  For
   example in the majority of the examples "L" (left client), "R" (right
   client), NAT-PUB" (NAT public), PRIV (Private), and "STUN-PUB" (STUN
   Public) are used.  To allow for multiple addresses from the same
   network element, each representation can also be followed by a
   number.  These can also be used in combination.  For example "L-NAT-
   PUB-1" would represent a public network address of the left hand side
   NAT while "R-NAT-PUB-1" would represent a public network address of
   the right hand side of the NAT.  "L-PRIV-1" would represent a private
   network address of the left hand side of the NAT while "R-PRIV-1"



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   represents a private address of the right hand side of the NAT.

   It should also be noted that during the examples it might be
   appropriate to signify an explicit part of a transport address.  This
   is achieved by adding either the '.address' or '.port' tag on the end
   of the representation.  For example, 'L-PRIV-1.address' and 'L-PRIV-
   1.port'.

   The use of '$' signifies variable parts in example SIP messages.

5.2.1.  Endpoint Independent NAT

   This section demonstrates an example of a client both initiating and
   receiving calls behind an 'Endpoint independent' NAT.  An example is
   included for both STUN and ICE with ICE being the RECOMMENDED
   mechanism for media traversal.

   At this time there is no reliable test to determine if a host is
   behind an 'endpoint independent filtering' NAT or an 'endpoint
   independent mapping' NAT [RFC5780], and the sort of failure that
   occurs in this situation is described in Section 5.2.2.1.  For this
   reason, ICE is RECOMMENDED over the mechanism described in this
   section.

5.2.1.1.  STUN Solution

   It is possible to traverse media through an 'Endpoint Independent NAT
   using STUN.  The remainder of this section provides simplified
   examples of the 'Binding Discovery' STUN as defined in [RFC5389].
   The STUN messages have been simplified and do not include 'Shared
   Secret' requests used to obtain the temporary username and password.

5.2.1.1.1.  Initiating Session

   The following example demonstrates media traversal through a NAT with
   'Endpoint-Independent Mapping' properties using the STUN 'Binding
   Discovery' usage.  It is assumed in this example that the STUN client
   and SIP Client are co-located on the same physical machine.  Note
   that some SIP signaling messages have been left out for simplicity.



     Client              NAT               STUN                [..]
                                          Server
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(1) BIND Req      |                  |                  |
       |Src=L-PRIV-1      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=STUN-PUB     |                  |                  |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(2) BIND Req      |                  |
       |                  |Src=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |
       |                  |Dest=STUN-PUB     |                  |
       |                  |----------------->|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(3) BIND Resp     |                  |
       |                  |<-----------------|                  |
       |                  |Src=STUN-PUB      |                  |
       |                  |Dest=NAT-PUB-1    |                  |
       |                  |Map=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(4) BIND Resp     |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |Src=STUN-PUB      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=L-PRIV-1     |                  |                  |
       |Map=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(5) BIND Req      |                  |                  |
       |Src=L-PRIV-2      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=STUN-PUB     |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(6) BIND Req      |                  |
       |                  |Src=NAT-PUB-2     |                  |
       |                  |Dest=STUN-PUB     |                  |
       |                  |----------------->|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(7) BIND Resp     |                  |
       |                  |<-----------------|                  |
       |                  |Src=STUN-PUB      |                  |
       |                  |Dest=NAT-PUB-2    |                  |
       |                  |Map=NAT-PUB-2     |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(8) BIND Resp     |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |Src=STUN-PUB      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=L-PRIV-2     |                  |                  |
       |Map=NAT-PUB-2     |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(9)SIP INVITE     |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(10)SIP INVITE    |                  |
       |                  |------------------------------------>|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |(11)SIP 200 OK    |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


       |                  |<------------------------------------|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(12)SIP 200 OK    |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |========================================================|
       |>>>>>>>>>>>>Outgoing Media sent from L-PRIV-1>>>>>>>>>>>|
       |========================================================|
       |                                                        |
       |========================================================|
       |<<<<<<<<<<<<Incoming Media sent to NAT-PUB-1<<<<<<<<<<<<|
       |========================================================|
       |                                                        |
       |========================================================|
       |>>>>>>>>>>>>Outgoing RTCP sent from L-PRIV-2>>>>>>>>>>>>|
       |========================================================|
       |                                                        |
       |========================================================|
       |<<<<<<<<<<<<Incoming RTCP sent to NAT-PUB-2<<<<<<<<<<<<<|
       |========================================================|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(13)SIP ACK       |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(14) SIP ACK      |                  |
       |                  |------------------------------------>|
       |                  |                  |                  |


             Figure 11: Endpoint Independent NAT - Initiating

   o  On deciding to initiate a SIP voice session the client starts a
      local STUN client on the interface and port that is to be used for
      media (send/receive).  The STUN client generates a standard
      'Binding Discovery' request as indicated in (1) from Figure 11
      which also highlights the source address and port for which the
      client device wishes to obtain a mapping.  The 'Binding Discovery'
      request is sent through the NAT towards the public internet and
      STUN server.

   o  Message (2) traverses the NAT and breaks out onto the public
      internet towards the public STUN server.  Note that the source
      address of the 'Binding Discovery' request now represents the
      public address and port from the public side of the NAT.

   o  The STUN server receives the request and processes it
      appropriately.  This results in a successful 'Binding Discovery'
      response being generated and returned (3).  The message contains



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


      details of the XOR mapped public address (contained in the STUN
      XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute) which is to be used by the
      originating client to receive media (see 'Map=NAT-PUB-1' from
      (3)).

   o  The 'Binding Discovery' response traverses back through the NAT
      using the path created by the 'Binding Discovery' request and
      presents the new XOR mapped address to the client (4).  At this
      point the process is repeated to obtain a second XOR-mapped
      address (as shown in (5)-(8)) for a second local address (Address
      has changed from "L-PRIV-1" to "L-PRIV-2") for an RTCP port.

   o  The client now constructs a SIP INVITE message(9).  Note that
      traversal of SIP is not covered in this example and is discussed
      in Section 5.1.  The INVITE request will use the addresses it has
      obtained in the previous STUN transactions to populate the SDP of
      the SIP INVITE as shown below:


      v=0
      o=test 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 $L-PRIV-1.address
      c=IN IP4 $NAT-PUB-1.address
      t=0 0
      m=audio $NAT-PUB-1.port RTP/AVP 0
      a=rtcp:$NAT-PUB-2.port


   o  Note that the XOR-mapped address obtained from the 'Binding
      Discovery' transactions are inserted as the connection address for
      the SDP (c=$NAT-PUB-1.address).  The Primary port for RTP is also
      inserted in the SDP (m=audio $NAT-PUB-1.port RTP/AVP 0).  Finally,
      the port gained from the additional 'Binding Discovery' is placed
      in the RTCP attribute (as discussed in Section 4.2.2) for
      traversal of RTCP (a=rtcp:$NAT-PUB-2.port).

   o  The SIP signaling then traverses the NAT and sets up the SIP
      session (9-12).  Note that the left client transmits media as soon
      as the 200 OK to the INVITE arrives at the client (12).  Up until
      this point the incoming media and RTCP to the left hand client
      will not pass through the NAT as no outbound association has been
      created with the far end client.  Two way media communication has
      now been established.

5.2.1.1.2.  Receiving Session Invitation

   Receiving a session for an 'Endpoint Independent' NAT using the STUN
   'Binding Discovery' usage is very similar to the example outlined in
   Section 5.2.1.1.1.  Figure 12 illustrates the associated flow of



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   messages.



     Client              NAT               STUN                [..]
                                          Server
       |                  |                  | (1)SIP INVITE    |
       |                  |<------------------------------------|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(2) SIP INVITE    |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(3) BIND Req      |                  |                  |
       |Src=L-PRIV-1      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=STUN-PUB     |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(4) BIND Req      |                  |
       |                  |Src=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |
       |                  |Dest=STUN-PUB     |                  |
       |                  |----------------->|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(5) BIND Resp     |                  |
       |                  |<-----------------|                  |
       |                  |Src=STUN-PUB      |                  |
       |                  |Dest=NAT-PUB-1    |                  |
       |                  |Map=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(6) BIND Resp     |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |Src=STUN-PUB      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=L-PRIV-1     |                  |                  |
       |Map=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(7) BIND Req      |                  |                  |
       |Src=L-PRIV-2      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=STUN-PUB     |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(8) BIND Req      |                  |
       |                  |Src=NAT-PUB-2     |                  |
       |                  |Dest=STUN-PUB     |                  |
       |                  |----------------->|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(9) BIND Resp     |                  |
       |                  |<-----------------|                  |
       |                  |Src=STUN-PUB      |                  |
       |                  |Dest=NAT-PUB-2    |                  |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 34]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


       |                  |Map=NAT-PUB-2     |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(10) BIND Resp    |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |Src=STUN-PUB      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=L-PRIV-2     |                  |                  |
       |Map=NAT-PUB-2     |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(11)SIP 200 OK    |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |(12)SIP 200 OK    |                  |
       |                  |------------------------------------>|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |========================================================|
       |>>>>>>>>>>>>Outgoing Media sent from L-PRIV-1>>>>>>>>>>>|
       |========================================================|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |========================================================|
       |<<<<<<<<<<<<<Incoming Media sent to L-PRIV-1<<<<<<<<<<<<|
       |========================================================|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |========================================================|
       |>>>>>>>>>>>>Outgoing RTCP sent from L-PRIV-2>>>>>>>>>>>>|
       |========================================================|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |========================================================|
       |<<<<<<<<<<<<<Incoming RTCP sent to L-PRIV-2<<<<<<<<<<<<<|
       |========================================================|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |(13)SIP ACK       |
       |                  |<------------------------------------|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(14)SIP ACK       |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |


              Figure 12: Endpoint Independent NAT - Receiving

   o  On receiving an invitation to a SIP voice session (SIP INVITE
      request) the User Agent starts a local STUN client on the
      appropriate port on which it is to receive media.  The STUN client
      generates a standard 'Binding Discovery' request as indicated in
      (3) from Figure 12 which also highlights the source address and
      port for which the client device wishes to obtain a mapping.  The
      'Binding Discovery' request is sent through the NAT towards the
      public internet and STUN Server.




Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 35]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   o  'Binding Discovery' message (4) traverses the NAT and breaks out
      onto the public internet towards the public STUN server.  Note
      that the source address of the STUN requests now represents the
      public address and port from the public side of the NAT.

   o  The STUN server receives the request and processes it
      appropriately.  This results in a successful 'Binding Discovery'
      response being generated and returned (5).  The message contains
      details of the mapped public address (contained in the STUN XOR-
      MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute) which is to be used by the originating
      client to receive media (see 'Map=NAT-PUB-1' from (5)).

   o  The 'Binding Discovery' response traverses back through the NAT
      using the path created by the outgoing 'Binding Discovery' request
      and presents the new XOR-mapped address to the client (6).  At
      this point the process is repeated to obtain a second XOR-mapped
      address (as shown in (7)-(10)) for a second local address (local
      port has now changed and is represented by L-PRIV-2 in (7)) for an
      RTCP port.

   o  The client now constructs a SIP 200 OK message (11) in response to
      the original SIP INVITE requests.  Note that traversal of SIP is
      not covered in this example and is discussed in Section 5.1.  SIP
      Provisional responses are also left out for simplicity.  The 200
      OK response will use the addresses it has obtained in the previous
      STUN transactions to populate the SDP of the SIP 200 OK as shown
      below:


      v=0
      o=test 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 $L-PRIV-1.address
      c=IN IP4 $NAT-PUB-1.address
      t=0 0
      m=audio $NAT-PUB-1.port RTP/AVP 0
      a=rtcp:$NAT-PUB-2.port


   o  Note that the XOR-mapped address obtained from the initial
      'Binding Discovery' transaction is inserted as the connection
      address for the SDP (c=NAT-PUB-1.address).  The Primary port for
      RTP is also inserted in the SDP (m=audio NAT-PUB-1.port RTP/AVP
      0).  Finally, the port gained from the second 'Binding Discovery'
      is placed in the RTCP attribute (as discussed in Section 4.2.2)
      for traversal of RTCP (a=rtcp:NAT-PUB-2.port).

   o  The SIP signaling then traverses the NAT and sets up the SIP
      session (11-14).  Note that the left hand client transmits media
      as soon as the 200 OK to the INVITE is sent to the UAC(11).  Up



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 36]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


      until this point the incoming media from the right hand client
      will not pass through the NAT as no outbound association has been
      created with the far end client.  Two way media communication has
      now been established.

5.2.1.2.  ICE Solution

   The preferred solution for media traversal of NAT is using ICE, as
   described in Section 4.2.3.3, regardless of the NAT type.  The
   following examples illustrate the traversal of an 'Endpoint
   Independent' NAT when initiating the session.  The example only
   covers ICE in association with the 'Binding Discovery' and TURN.  It
   is worth noting that the TURN server provides both STUN functions(to
   learn your public mapping) and TURN functions (media relaying).  It
   is also worth noting that in example described in Section 5.2.1.2.1,
   that both SIP clients 'L' and 'R' are contacting the same TURN
   server.  This is not necessary for ICE, STUN, TURN to function; all
   that is necessary is that the STUN and TURN server(s) be in the same
   addressing domain - that is accessible on the Internet.

5.2.1.2.1.  Initiating Session

   The following example demonstrates an initiating traversal through an
   'Endpoint independent' NAT using ICE.



   L               NAT              STUN             NAT               R
                                   Server
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(1) Alloc Req   |                |                |                |
   |Src=L-PRIV-1    |                |                |                |
   |Dest=TURN-PUB-1 |                |                |                |
   |--------------->|                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |(2) Alloc Req   |                |                |
   |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |
   |                |Dest=TURN-PUB-1 |                |                |
   |                |--------------->|                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |(3) Alloc Resp  |                |                |
   |                |<---------------|                |                |
   |                |Src=TURN-PUB-1  |                |                |
   |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1|                |                |
   |                |Map=L-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |
   |                |Rel=TURN-PUB-2  |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(4) Alloc Resp  |                |                |                |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 37]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   |<---------------|                |                |                |
   |Src=TURN-PUB-1  |                |                |                |
   |Dest=L-PRIV-1   |                |                |                |
   |Map=L-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |                |
   |Rel=TURN-PUB-2  |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(5) Alloc Req   |                |                |                |
   |Src=L-PRIV-2    |                |                |                |
   |Dest=TURN-PUB-1 |                |                |                |
   |--------------->|                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |(6) Alloc Req   |                |                |
   |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |
   |                |Dest=TURN-PUB-1 |                |                |
   |                |--------------->|                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |(7) Alloc Resp  |                |                |
   |                |<---------------|                |                |
   |                |Src=TURN-PUB-1  |                |                |
   |                |Dest=NAT-PUB-2  |                |                |
   |                |Map=NAT-PUB-2   |                |                |
   |                |Rel=TURN-PUB-3  |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(8) Alloc Resp  |                |                |                |
   |<---------------|                |                |                |
   |Src=TURN-PUB-1  |                |                |                |
   |Dest=L-PRIV-2   |                |                |                |
   |Map=L-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |                |
   |Rel=TURN-PUB-3  |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(9) SIP INVITE  |                |                |                |
   |------------------------------------------------->|                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(10) SIP INVITE |
   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(11) Alloc Req  |
   |                |                |                |<---------------|
   |                |                |                |Src=R-PRIV-1    |
   |                |                |                |Dest=TURN-PUB-1 |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |(12) Alloc Req  |                |
   |                |                |<---------------|                |
   |                |                |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1 |                |
   |                |                |Dest=TURN-PUB-1 |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |(13) Alloc Res  |                |
   |                |                |--------------->|                |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 38]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   |                |                |Src=TURN-PUB-1  |                |
   |                |                |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-1|                |
   |                |                |Map=R-NAT-PUB-1 |                |
   |                |                |Rel=TURN-PUB-4  |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(14) Alloc Res  |
   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |Src=TURN-PUB-1  |
   |                |                |                |Dest=R-PRIV-1   |
   |                |                |                |Map=R-NAT-PUB-1 |
   |                |                |                |Rel=TURN-PUB-4  |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(15) Alloc Req  |
   |                |                |                |<---------------|
   |                |                |                |Src=R-PRIV-2    |
   |                |                |                |Dest=TURN-PUB-1 |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |(16) Alloc Req  |                |
   |                |                |<---------------|                |
   |                |                |Src=R-NAT-PUB-2 |                |
   |                |                |Dest=TURN-PUB-1 |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |(17) Alloc Res  |                |
   |                |                |--------------->|                |
   |                |                |Src=TURN-PUB-1  |                |
   |                |                |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-2|                |
   |                |                |Map=R-NAT-PUB-2 |                |
   |                |                |Rel=TURN-PUB-5  |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(18) Alloc Res  |
   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |Src=TURN-PUB-1  |
   |                |                |                |Dest=R-PRIV-2   |
   |                |                |                |Map=R-NAT-PUB-2 |
   |                |                |                |Rel=TURN-PUB-5  |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(19) SIP 200 OK |
   |                |<-------------------------------------------------|
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(20) SIP 200 OK |                |                |                |
   |<---------------|                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(21) SIP ACK    |                |                |                |
   |------------------------------------------------->|                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(22) SIP ACK    |
   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |                |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 39]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   |(23) Bind Req   |                |                |                |
   |------------------------>x       |                |                |
   |Src=L-PRIV-1    |                |                |                |
   |Dest=R-PRIV-1   |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(24) Bind Req   |                |                |                |
   |--------------->|                |                |                |
   |Src=L-PRIV-1    |                |                |                |
   |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-1|                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |(25) Bind Req   |                |                |
   |                |-------------------------------->|                |
   |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |
   |                |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-1|                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(26) Bind Req   |
   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-1 |
   |                |                |                |Dest=R-PRIV-1   |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(27) Bind Res   |
   |                |                |                |<---------------|
   |                |                |                |Src=R-PRIV-1    |
   |                |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1|
   |                |                |                |Map=L-NAT-PUB-1 |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |(28) Bind Res   |                |
   |                |<--------------------------------|                |
   |                |                |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1 |                |
   |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1|                |
   |                |                |Map=L-NAT-PUB-1 |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(29) Bind Res   |                |                |                |
   |<---------------|                |                |                |
   |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |                |
   |Dest=L-PRIV-1   |                |                |                |
   |Map=L-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |===================================================================|
   |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Outgoing RTP sent from L-PRIV-1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|
   |===================================================================|
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(30) Bind Req   |
   |                |                |        x<-----------------------|
   |                |                |                |Src=R-PRIV-1    |
   |                |                |                |Dest=L-PRIV-1   |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(31) Bind Req   |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 40]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   |                |                |                |<---------------|
   |                |                |                |Src=R-PRIV-1    |
   |                |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1|
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |(32) Bind Req   |                |
   |                |<--------------------------------|                |
   |                |                |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1 |                |
   |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1|                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(33) Bind Req   |                |                |                |
   |<---------------|                |                |                |
   |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |                |
   |Dest=L-PRIV-1   |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(34) Bind Res   |                |                |                |
   |--------------->|                |                |                |
   |Src=L-PRIV-1    |                |                |                |
   |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-1|                |                |                |
   |Map=R-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |(35) Bind Res   |                |                |
   |                |-------------------------------->|                |
   |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |
   |                |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-1|                |                |
   |                |Map=R-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(36) Bind Res   |
   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-1 |
   |                |                |                |Dest=R-PRIV-1   |
   |                |                |                |Map=R-NAT-PUB-1 |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |===================================================================|
   |<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Outgoing RTP sent from R-PRIV-1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|
   |===================================================================|
   |(37) Bind Req   |                |                |                |
   |--------------->|                |                |                |
   |Src=L-PRIV-1    |                |                |                |
   |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-1|                |                |                |
   |USE-CANDIDATE   |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |(38) Bind Req   |                |                |
   |                |-------------------------------->|                |
   |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |
   |                |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-1|                |                |
   |                |USE-CANDIDATE   |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(39) Bind Req   |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 41]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-1 |
   |                |                |                |Dest=R-PRIV-1   |
   |                |                |                |USE-CANDIDATE   |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(40) Bind Res   |
   |                |                |                |<---------------|
   |                |                |                |Src=R-PRIV-1    |
   |                |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1|
   |                |                |                |Map=L-NAT-PUB-1 |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |(41) Bind Res   |                |
   |                |<--------------------------------|                |
   |                |                |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1 |                |
   |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1|                |
   |                |                |Map=L-NAT-PUB-1 |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(42) Bind Res   |                |                |                |
   |<---------------|                |                |                |
   |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |                |
   |Dest=L-PRIV-1   |                |                |                |
   |Map=L-NAT-PUB-1 |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(43) Bind Req   |                |                |                |
   |--------------->|                |                |                |
   |Src=L-PRIV-2    |                |                |                |
   |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-2|                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |(44) Bind Req   |                |                |
   |                |-------------------------------->|                |
   |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |
   |                |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-2|                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(45) Bind Req   |
   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-2 |
   |                |                |                |Dest=R-PRIV-2   |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(46) Bind Res   |
   |                |                |                |<---------------|
   |                |                |                |Src=R-PRIV-2    |
   |                |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-2|
   |                |                |                |Map=L-NAT-PUB-2 |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |(47) Bind Res   |                |
   |                |<--------------------------------|                |
   |                |                |Src=R-NAT-PUB-2 |                |
   |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-2|                |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 42]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   |                |                |Map=L-NAT-PUB-2 |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(48) Bind Res   |                |                |                |
   |<---------------|                |                |                |
   |Src=R-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |                |
   |Dest=L-PRIV-2   |                |                |                |
   |Map=L-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |===================================================================|
   |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Outgoing RTCP sent from L-PRIV-2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|
   |===================================================================|
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(49) Bind Req   |
   |                |                |                |<---------------|
   |                |                |                |Src=R-PRIV-2    |
   |                |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-2|
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |(50) Bind Req   |                |
   |                |<--------------------------------|                |
   |                |                |Src=R-NAT-PUB-2 |                |
   |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-2|                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(51) Bind Req   |                |                |                |
   |<---------------|                |                |                |
   |Src=R-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |                |
   |Dest=L-PRIV-2   |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(52) Bind Res   |                |                |                |
   |--------------->|                |                |                |
   |Src=L-PRIV-2    |                |                |                |
   |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-2|                |                |                |
   |Map=R-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |(53) Bind Res   |                |                |
   |                |-------------------------------->|                |
   |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |
   |                |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-2|                |                |
   |                |Map=R-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(54) Bind Res   |
   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-2 |
   |                |                |                |Dest=R-PRIV-2   |
   |                |                |                |Map=R-NAT-PUB-2 |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |===================================================================|
   |<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Outgoing RTCP sent from R-PRIV-2<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|
   |===================================================================|



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 43]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   |(55) Bind Req   |                |                |                |
   |--------------->|                |                |                |
   |Src=L-PRIV-2    |                |                |                |
   |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-2|                |                |                |
   |USE-CANDIDATE   |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |(56) Bind Req   |                |                |
   |                |-------------------------------->|                |
   |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |
   |                |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-2|                |                |
   |                |USE-CANDIDATE   |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(57) Bind Req   |
   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |Src=L-NAT-PUB-2 |
   |                |                |                |Dest=R-PRIV-2   |
   |                |                |                |USE-CANDIDATE   |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(58) Bind Res   |
   |                |                |                |<---------------|
   |                |                |                |Src=R-PRIV-2    |
   |                |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-2|
   |                |                |                |Map=L-NAT-PUB-2 |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |(59) Bind Res   |                |
   |                |<--------------------------------|                |
   |                |                |Src=R-NAT-PUB-2 |                |
   |                |                |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-2|                |
   |                |                |Map=L-NAT-PUB-2 |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(60) Bind Res   |                |                |                |
   |<---------------|                |                |                |
   |Src=R-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |                |
   |Dest=L-PRIV-2   |                |                |                |
   |Map=L-NAT-PUB-2 |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(61) SIP INVITE |                |                |                |
   |------------------------------------------------->|                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(62) SIP INVITE |
   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(63) SIP 200 OK |
   |                |<-------------------------------------------------|
   |                |                |                |                |
   |(64) SIP 200 OK |                |                |                |
   |<---------------|                |                |                |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 44]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   |                |                |                |                |
   |(65) SIP ACK    |                |                |                |
   |------------------------------------------------->|                |
   |                |                |                |                |
   |                |                |                |(66) SIP ACK    |
   |                |                |                |--------------->|
   |                |                |                |                |


               Figure 13: Endpoint Independent NAT with ICE

   o  On deciding to initiate a SIP voice session the SIP client 'L'
      starts a local STUN client.  The STUN client generates a TURN
      Allocate request as indicated in (1) from Figure 13 which also
      highlights the source address and port combination for which the
      client device wishes to obtain a mapping.  The Allocate request is
      sent through the NAT towards the public internet.

   o  The Allocate message (2) traverses the NAT to the public internet
      towards the public TURN server.  Note that the source address of
      the Allocate request now represents the public address and port
      from the public side of the NAT (L-NAT-PUB-1).

   o  The TURN server receives the Allocate request and processes it
      appropriately.  This results in a successful Allocate response
      being generated and returned (3).  The message contains details of
      the server reflexive address which is to be used by the
      originating client to receive media (see 'Map=L-NAT-PUB-1') from
      (3)).  It also contains an appropriate TURN-relayed address that
      can be used at the STUN server (see 'Rel=TURN-PUB-2').

   o  The Allocate response traverses back through the NAT using the
      binding created by the initial Allocate request and presents the
      new mapped address to the client (4).  The process is repeated and
      a second STUN derived set of address' are obtained, as illustrated
      in (5)-(8) in Figure 13.  At this point the User Agent behind the
      NAT has pairs of derived external server reflexive and relayed
      representations.  The client can also gather IP addresses and
      ports via other mechanisms (e.g., NAT-PMP[I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp],
      UPnP IGD[UPnP-IGD]) or similar.

   o  The client now constructs a SIP INVITE message (9).  The INVITE
      request will use the addresses it has obtained in the previous
      STUN/TURN interactions to populate the SDP of the SIP INVITE.
      This should be carried out in accordance with the semantics
      defined in the ICE specification[RFC5245], as shown below in
      Figure 14:




Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 45]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


 v=0
 o=test 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 $L-PRIV-1
 c=IN IP4 $L-PRIV-1.address
 t=0 0
 a=ice-pwd:$LPASS
 a=ice-ufrag:$LUNAME
 m=audio $L-PRIV-1.port RTP/AVP 0
 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
 a=rtcp:$L-PRIV-2.port
 a=candidate:$L1 1 UDP 2130706431 $L-PRIV-1.address $L-PRIV-1.port
             typ host
 a=candidate:$L1 2 UDP 2130706430 $L-PRIV-2.address $L-PRIV-2.port
             typ host
 a=candidate:$L2 1 UDP 1694498815 $L-NAT-PUB-1.address $L-NAT-PUB-1.port
             typ srflx raddr $L-PRIV-1.address rport $L-PRIV-1.port
 a=candidate:$L2 2 UDP 1694498814 $L-NAT-PUB-2.address $L-NAT-PUB-2.port
             typ srflx raddr $L-PRIV-1.address rport $L-PRIV-2.port
 a=candidate:$L3 1 UDP 16777215 $STUN-PUB-2.address $STUN-PUB-2.port
             typ relay raddr $L-PRIV-1.address rport $L-PRIV-1.port
 a=candidate:$L3 2 UDP 16777214 $STUN-PUB-3.address $STUN-PUB-3.port
             typ relay raddr $L-PRIV-1.address rport $L-PRIV-2.port


                         Figure 14: ICE SDP Offer

   o  The SDP has been constructed to include all the available
      candidates that have been assembled.  The first set of candidates
      (as identified by Foundation $L1) contain two local addresses that
      have the highest priority.  They are also encoded into the
      connection (c=) and media (m=) lines of the SDP.  The second set
      of candidates, as identified by Foundation $L2, contains the two
      server reflexive addresses obtained from the STUN server for both
      RTP and RTCP traffic (identified by candidate-id $L2).  This entry
      has been given a priority lower than the pair $L1 by the client.
      The third and final set of candidates represents the relayed
      addresses (as identified by $L3) obtained from the STUN server.
      This pair has the lowest priority and will be used as a last
      resort if both $L1 or $L2 fail.

   o  The SIP signaling then traverses the NAT and sets up the SIP
      session (9)-(10).  On advertising a candidate address, the client
      should have a local STUN server running on each advertised
      candidate address.  This is for the purpose of responding to
      incoming STUN connectivity checks.

   o  On receiving the SIP INVITE request (10) client 'R' also starts
      local STUN servers on appropriate address/port combinations and
      gathers potential candidate addresses to be encoded into the SDP



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 46]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


      (as the originating client did).  Steps (11-18) involve client 'R'
      carrying out the same steps as client 'L'.  This involves
      obtaining local, server reflexive and relayed addresses.  Client
      'R' is now ready to generate an appropriate answer in the SIP 200
      OK message (19).  The example answer follows in Figure 14:


 v=0
 o=test 3890844516 3890842803 IN IP4 $R-PRIV-1
 c=IN IP4 $R-PRIV-1.address
 t=0 0
 a=ice-pwd:$RPASS
 m=audio $R-PRIV-1.port RTP/AVP 0
 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
 a=rtcp:$R-PRIV-2.port
 a=candidate:$L1 1 UDP 2130706431 $R-PRIV-1.address $R-PRIV-1.port
             typ host
 a=candidate:$L1 2 UDP 2130706430 $R-PRIV-2.address $R-PRIV-2.port
             typ host
 a=candidate:$L2 1 UDP 1694498815 $R-NAT-PUB-1.address $R-NAT-PUB-1.port
             typ srflx raddr $R-PRIV-1.address rport $R-PRIV-1.port
 a=candidate:$L2 2 UDP 1694498814 $R-NAT-PUB-2.address $R-NAT-PUB-2.port
             typ srflx raddr $R-PRIV-1.address rport $R-PRIV-1.port
 a=candidate:$L3 1 UDP 16777215 $STUN-PUB-2.address $STUN-PUB-4.port
             typ relay raddr $R-PRIV-1.address rport $R-PRIV-1.port
 a=candidate:$L3 2 UDP 16777214 $STUN-PUB-3.address $STUN-PUB-5.port
             typ relay raddr $R-PRIV-1.address rport $R-PRIV-1.port


                         Figure 15: ICE SDP Answer

   o  The two clients have now exchanged SDP using offer/answer and can
      now continue with the ICE processing - User Agent 'L' assuming the
      role controlling agent, as specified by ICE.  The clients are now
      required to form their Candidate check lists to determine which
      will be used for the media streams.  In this example User Agent
      'L's 'Foundation 1' is paired with User Agent 'R's 'Foundation 1',
      User Agent 'L's 'Foundation 2' is paired with User Agent 'R's
      'Foundation 2', and finally User Agent 'L's 'Foundation 3' is
      paired with User Agent 'R's 'Foundation 3'.  User Agents 'L' and
      'R' now have a complete candidate check list.  Both clients now
      use the algorithm provided in ICE to determine candidate pair
      priorities and sort into a list of decreasing priorities.  In this
      example, both User Agent 'L' and 'R' will have lists that firstly
      specifies the host address (Foundation $L1), then the server
      reflexive address (Foundation $L2) and lastly the relayed address
      (Foundation $L3).  All candidate pairs have an associate state as
      specified in ICE.  At this stage, all of the candidate pairs for



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 47]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


      User Agents 'L' and 'R' are initialized to the 'Frozen' state.
      The User Agents then scan the list and move the candidates to the
      'Waiting' state.  At this point both clients will periodically,
      starting with the highest candidate pair priority, work their way
      down the list issuing STUN checks from the local candidate to the
      remote candidate (of the candidate pair).  As a STUN Check is
      attempted from each local candidate in the list, the candidate
      pair state transitions to 'In-Progress'.  As illustrated in (23),
      client 'L' constructs a STUN connectivity check in an attempt to
      validate the remote candidate address received in the SDP of the
      200 OK (20) for the highest priority in the check list.  As a
      private address was specified in the active address in the SDP,
      the STUN connectivity check fails to reach its destination causing
      a STUN failure.  Client 'L' transitions the state for this
      candidate pair to 'Failed'.  In the mean time, Client 'L' is
      attempting a STUN connectivity check for the second candidate pair
      in the returned SDP with the second highest priority (24).  As can
      be seen from messages (24) to (29), the STUN Bind request is
      successful and returns a positive outcome for the connectivity
      check.  Client 'L' is now free to send media to the peer using the
      candidate pair.  Immediately after sending its 200 Okay, Client
      'R' also carries out the same set of binding requests.  It firstly
      (in parallel) tries to contact the active address contained in the
      SDP (30) which results in failure.

   o  In the mean time, a successful response to a STUN connectivity
      check by User Agent 'R' (27) results in a tentative check in the
      reverse direction - this is illustrated by messages (31) to (36).
      Once this check has succeeded, User Agent 'R' can transition the
      state of the appropriate candidate to 'Succeeded', and media can
      be sent (RTP).  The previously (31-36) described check confirm on
      both sides (User Agent 'L' and 'R') that connectivity can be
      achieved using the appropriate candidate pair.  User Agent 'L', as
      the controlling client now sends another connectivity check for
      the candidate pair, this time including the 'USE-CANDIDATE'
      attribute as specified in ICE to signal the chosen candidate.
      This exchange is illustrated in messages (37) to (42).

   o  As part of the process in this example, both 'L' and 'R' will now
      complete the same connectivity checks for part 2 of the component
      named for the favored 'Foundation' selected for use with RTCP.
      The connectivity checks for part '2' of the candidate component
      are shown in 'L'(43-48) and 'R'(49-54).  Once this has succeeded,
      User Agent 'L' as the controlling client sends another
      connectivity check for the candidate pair.  This time the 'USE-
      CANDIDATE' attribute is again specified to signal the chosen
      candidate for component '2'.




Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 48]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   o  The candidates have now been fully verified (and selected) and as
      they are the highest priority, an updated offer (61-62) is now
      sent from the offerer (client 'L') to the answerer (client 'R')
      representing the new active candidates.  The new offer would look
      as follows:


 v=0
 o=test 2890844526 2890842808 IN IP4 $L-PRIV-1
 c=IN IP4 $L-NAT-PUB-1.address
 t=0 0
 a=ice-pwd:$LPASS
 a=ice-ufrag:$LUNAME
 m=audio $L-NAT-PUB-1.port RTP/AVP 0
 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
 a=rtcp:$L-NAT-PUB-2.port
 a=candidate:$L2 1 UDP 2203948363 $L-NAT-PUB-1.address $L-NAT-PUB-1.port
             typ srflx raddr $L-PRIV-1.address rport $L-PRIV-1.port
 a=candidate:$L2 2 UDP 2172635342 $L-NAT-PUB-2.address $L-NAT-PUB-2.port
             typ srflx raddr $L-PRIV-1.address rport $L-PRIV-2.port


                     Figure 16: ICE SDP Updated Offer

   o  The resulting answer (63-64) for 'R' would look as follows:


 v=0
 o=test 3890844516 3890842804 IN IP4 $R-PRIV-1
 c=IN IP4 $R-PRIV-1.address
 t=0 0
 a=ice-pwd:$RPASS
 a=ice-ufrag:$RUNAME
 m=audio $R-PRIV-1.port RTP/AVP 0
 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
 a=rtcp:$R-PRIV-2.port
 a=candidate:$L2 1 UDP 2984756463 $R-NAT-PUB-1.address $R-NAT-PUB-1.port
             typ srflx raddr $R-PRIV-1.address rport $R-PRIV-1.port
 a=candidate:$L2 2 UDP 2605968473 $R-NAT-PUB-2.address $R-NAT-PUB-2.port
             typ srflx raddr $R-PRIV-1.address rport $R-PRIV-2.port


                     Figure 17: ICE SDP Updated Answer








Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 49]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


5.2.2.  Address/Port-Dependent NAT

5.2.2.1.  STUN Failure

   This section highlights that while using STUN techniques is the
   preferred mechanism for traversal of NAT, it does not solve every
   case.  The use of basic STUN on its own will not guarantee traversal
   through every NAT type, hence the recommendation that ICE is the
   preferred option.










































Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 50]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


     Client     PORT/ADDRESS-Dependant     STUN                [..]
                         NAT              Server
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(1) BIND Req      |                  |                  |
       |Src=L-PRIV-1      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=STUN-PUB     |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(2) BIND Req      |                  |
       |                  |Src=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |
       |                  |Dest=STUN-PUB     |                  |
       |                  |----------------->|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(3) BIND Resp     |                  |
       |                  |<-----------------|                  |
       |                  |Src=STUN-PUB      |                  |
       |                  |Dest=NAT-PUB-1    |                  |
       |                  |Map=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(4) BIND Resp     |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |Src=STUN-PUB      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=L-PRIV-1     |                  |                  |
       |Map=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(5)SIP INVITE     |                  |                  |
       |------------------------------------------------------->|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |(6)SIP 200 OK     |
       |                  |<------------------------------------|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(7)SIP 200 OK     |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |========================================================|
       |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Outgoing Media sent from L-PRIV-1>>>>>>>>>|
       |========================================================|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  x=====================================|
       |                  xIncoming Media sent to L-PRIV-1<<<<<<|
       |                  x=====================================|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(8)SIP ACK        |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |(9) SIP ACK       |                  |
       |                  |------------------------------------>|
       |                  |                  |                  |




Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 51]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


         Figure 18: Port/Address-Dependant NAT with STUN - Failure

   The example in Figure 18 is conveyed in the context of a client
   behind the 'Port/Address-Dependant' NAT initiating a call.  It should
   be noted that the same problem applies when a client receives a SIP
   invitation and is behind a Port/Address-Dependant NAT.

   o  In Figure 18 the client behind the NAT obtains a server reflexive
      representation using standard STUN mechanisms (1)-(4) that have
      been used in previous examples in this document (e.g
      Section 5.2.1.1.1).

   o  The external mapped address (server reflexive) obtained is also
      used in the outgoing SDP contained in the SIP INVITE request(5).

   o  In this example the client is still able to send media to the
      external client.  The problem occurs when the client outside the
      NAT tries to use the reflexive address supplied in the outgoing
      INVITE request to traverse media back through the 'Port/Address
      Dependent' NAT.

   o  A 'Port/Address-Dependant' NAT has differing rules from the
      'Endpoint Independent' type of NAT (as defined in RFC4787
      [RFC4787]).  For any internal IP address and port combination,
      data sent to a different external destination does not provide the
      same public mapping at the NAT.  In Figure 18 the STUN query
      produced a valid external mapping for receiving media.  This
      mapping, however, can only be used in the context of the original
      STUN request that was sent to the STUN server.  Any packets that
      attempt to use the mapped address, that do not originate from the
      STUN server IP address and optionally port, will be dropped at the
      NAT.  Figure 18 shows the media being dropped at the NAT after (7)
      and before (8).  This then leads to one way audio.

5.2.2.2.  TURN Solution

   As identified in Section 5.2.2.1, STUN provides a useful tool for the
   traversal of the majority of NATs but fails with Port/Address
   Dependent NAT.  The TURN extensions [RFC5766] address this scenario.
   TURN extends STUN to allow a client to request a relayed address at
   the TURN server rather than a reflexive representation.  This then
   introduces a media relay in the path for NAT traversal (as described
   in Section 4.2.3.2).  The following example explains how TURN solves
   the previous failure when using STUN to traverse a 'Port/Address
   Dependent' type NAT.  It should be noted that TURN works most
   effectively when used in conjunction with ICE.  Using TURN on its own
   results in all media being relayed through a TURN server which is not
   efficient.



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 52]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


       L        Port/Address-Dependant     TURN                [..]
                         NAT              Server
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(1) Alloc Req     |                  |                  |
       |Src=L-PRIV-1      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=STUN-PUB-1   |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(2) Alloc Req     |                  |
       |                  |Src=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |
       |                  |Dest=STUN-PUB-1   |                  |
       |                  |----------------->|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(3) Alloc Resp    |                  |
       |                  |<-----------------|                  |
       |                  |Src=STUN-PUB-1    |                  |
       |                  |Dest=NAT-PUB-1    |                  |
       |                  |Map=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |
       |                  |Rel=STUN-PUB-2    |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(4) Alloc Resp    |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |Src=STUN-PUB-1    |                  |                  |
       |Dest=L-PRIV-1     |                  |                  |
       |Map=NAT-PUB-1     |                  |                  |
       |Rel=STUN-PUB-2    |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(5) Alloc Req     |                  |                  |
       |Src=L-PRIV-2      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=STUN-PUB-1   |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(6) Alloc Req     |                  |
       |                  |Src=NAT-PUB-2     |                  |
       |                  |Dest=STUN-PUB-1   |                  |
       |                  |----------------->|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(7) Alloc Resp    |                  |
       |                  |<-----------------|                  |
       |                  |Src=STUN-PUB-1    |                  |
       |                  |Dest=NAT-PUB-2    |                  |
       |                  |Map=NAT-PUB-2     |                  |
       |                  |Rel=STUN-PUB-3    |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(8) Alloc Resp    |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |Src=STUN-PUB-1    |                  |                  |
       |Dest=L-PRIV-2     |                  |                  |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 53]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


       |Map=NAT-PUB-2     |                  |                  |
       |Rel=STUN-PUB-3    |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(9)SIP INVITE     |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(10)SIP INVITE    |                  |
       |                  |------------------------------------>|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |(11)SIP 200 OK    |
       |                  |<------------------------------------|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(12)SIP 200 OK    |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |========================================================|
       |>>>>>>>>>>>>>Outgoing Media sent from L-PRIV-1>>>>>>>>>>|
       |========================================================|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |==================|
       |                  |                  |<<<Media Sent to<<|
       |                  |                  |<<<<STUN-PUB-2<<<<|
       |                  |                  |==================|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |=====================================|                  |
       |<Incoming Media Relayed to L-PRIV-1<<|                  |
       |=====================================|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |==================|
       |                  |                  |<<<RTCP Sent to<<>|
       |                  |                  |<<<<STUN-PUB-3<<<<|
       |                  |                  |==================|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |=====================================|                  |
       |<<Incoming RTCP Relayed to L-PRIV-2<<|                  |
       |=====================================|                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(13)SIP ACK       |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(14) SIP ACK      |                  |
       |                  |------------------------------------>|
       |                  |                  |                  |


         Figure 19: Port/Address-Dependant NAT with TURN - Success





Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 54]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   o  In this example, client 'L' issues a TURN allocate request(1) to
      obtained a relay address at the STUN server.  The request
      traverses through the 'Port/Address-Dependant' NAT and reaches the
      STUN server (2).  The STUN server generates an Allocate response
      (3) that contains both a server reflexive address (Map=NAT-PUB-1)
      of the client and also a relayed address (Rel=STUN-PUB-2).  The
      relayed address maps to an address mapping on the STUN server
      which is bound to the public pin hole that has been opened on the
      NAT by the Allocate request.  This results in any traffic sent to
      the TURN server relayed address (Rel=STUN-PUB-2) being forwarded
      to the external representation of the pin hole created by the
      Allocate request(NAT-PUB-1).

   o  The TURN derived address (STUN-PUB-2) arrives back at the
      originating client (4) in an Allocate response.  This address can
      then be used in the SDP for the outgoing SIP INVITE request as
      shown in the following example (note that the example also
      includes client 'L' obtaining a second relay address for use in
      the RTCP attribute (5-8)):


      v=0
      o=test 2890844342 2890842164 IN IP4 $L-PRIV-1
      c=IN IP4 $STUN-PUB-2.address
      t=0 0
      m=audio $STUN-PUB-2.port RTP/AVP 0
      a=rtcp:$STUN-PUB-3.port


   o  On receiving the INVITE request, the UAS is able to stream media
      and RTCP to the relay address (STUN-PUB-2 and STUN-PUB-3) at the
      STUN server.  As shown in Figure 19 (between messages (12) and
      (13), the media from the UAS is directed to the relayed address at
      the STUN server.  The STUN server then forwards the traffic to the
      open pin holes in the Port/Address-Dependant NAT (NAT-PUB-1 and
      NAT-PUB-2).  The media traffic is then able to traverse the 'Port/
      Address-Dependant' NAT and arrives back at client 'L'.

   o  TURN on its own will work for 'Port/Address-Dependent' and other
      types of NAT mentioned in this specification but should only be
      used as a last resort.  The relaying of media through an external
      entity is not an efficient mechanism for NAT traversal and comes
      at a high processing cost.








Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 55]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


5.2.2.3.  ICE Solution

   The previous two examples have highlighted the problem with using
   core STUN for all forms of NAT traversal and a solution using TURN
   for the Address/Port-Dependent NAT case.  The RECOMMENDED mechanism
   for traversing all varieties of NAT is using ICE, as detailed in
   Section 4.2.3.3.  ICE makes use of core STUN, TURN and any other
   mechanism (e.g., NAT-PMP[I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp], UPnP IGD[UPnP-IGD])
   to provide a list of prioritized addresses that can be used for media
   traffic.  Detailed examples of ICE can be found in Section 5.2.1.2.1.
   These examples are associated with an 'Endpoint-Independent' type NAT
   but can be applied to any NAT type variation, including 'Address/
   Port-Dependant' type NAT.  The ICE procedures carried out are the
   same.  For a list of candidate addresses, a client will choose where
   to send media dependant on the results of the STUN connectivity
   checks and associated priority (highest priority wins).  It should be
   noted that the inclusion of a NAT displaying Address/Port-Dependent
   properties does not automatically result in relayed media.  In fact,
   ICE processing will avoid use of media relay with the exception of
   two clients which both happen to be behind a NAT using Address/
   Port-Dependent characteristics.  The connectivity checks and
   associated selection algorithm enable traversal in this case.
   Figure 20 and following description provide a guide as to how this is
   achieved using the ICE connectivity checks.  This is an abbreviated
   example that assumes successful SIP offer/answer exchange and
   illustrates the connectivity check flow.



       L      Port/Address-Dependent  Endpoint-Independent      R
                        L-NAT               R-NAT
       |========================================================|
       |               SIP OFFER/ANSWER EXCHANGE                |
       |========================================================|
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |(1)Bind Req       |
       |                  |                  |<-----------------|
       |                  |                  |Src=R=PRIV-1      |
       |                  |                  |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(2)Bind Req       |                  |
       |                  x<-----------------|                  |
       |                  |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1   |                  |
       |                  |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(3)Bind Req       |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |Src=L-PRIV-1      |                  |                  |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 56]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


       |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-1  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(4)Bind Req       |                  |
       |                  |----------------->|                  |
       |                  |Src=L-NAT-PUB-1   |                  |
       |                  |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-1  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |(5)Bind Req       |
       |                  |                  |----------------->|
       |                  |                  |Src=L-NAT-PUB-1   |
       |                  |                  |Dest=R-PRIV-1     |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |(6)Bind Resp      |
       |                  |                  |<-----------------|
       |                  |                  |Src=R-PRIV-1      |
       |                  |                  |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(7)Bind Resp      |                  |
       |                  |<-----------------|                  |
       |                  |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1   |                  |
       |                  |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(8)Bind Resp      |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1   |                  |                  |
       |Dest=L-PRIV-1     |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |(9)Bind Req       |
       |                  |                  |<-----------------|
       |                  |                  |Src=R-Priv-1      |
       |                  |                  |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1  |
       |                  |(10)Bind Req      |                  |
       |                  |<-----------------|                  |
       |                  |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1   |                  |
       |                  |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(11)Bind Req      |                  |                  |
       |<-----------------|                  |                  |
       |Src=R-NAT-PUB-1   |                  |                  |
       |Dest=L-PRIV-1     |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |(12)Bind Resp     |                  |                  |
       |----------------->|                  |                  |
       |Src=L-PRIV-1      |                  |                  |
       |Dest=L-NAT-PUB-1  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |(13)Bind Resp     |                  |
       |                  |----------------->|                  |



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 57]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


       |                  |Src=L-NAT-PUB-1   |                  |
       |                  |Dest=R-NAT-PUB-1  |                  |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |                  |                  |(14)Bind Resp     |
       |                  |                  |----------------->|
       |                  |                  |Src=L-NAT-PUB-1   |
       |                  |                  |Dest=R-PRIV-1     |
       |                  |                  |                  |
       |



          Figure 20: Single Port/Address-Dependant NAT - Success

   In this abbreviated example, Client R has already received a SIP
   INVITE request and is starting its connectivity checks with Client L.
   Client R generates a connectivity check (1) and sends to client L's
   information as presented in the SDP offer.  The request arrives at
   client L's Port/Address dependent NAT and fails to traverse as there
   is no NAT binding.  This would then move the connectivity check to a
   failed state.  In the mean time client L has received the SDP answer
   in the SIP request and will also commence connectivity checks.  A
   check is dispatched (3) to Client R. The check is able to traverse
   the NAT due to the association set up in the previously failed
   check(1).  The full Bind request/response is shown in steps (3)-(8).
   As part of a candidate pair, Client R will now successfully be able
   to complete the checks, as illustrated in steps (9)-(14).  The result
   is a successful pair of candidates that can be used without the need
   to relay any media.

   In conclusion, the only time media needs to be relayed is a result of
   clients both behind Address/Port Dependant NAT type.  As you can see
   from the example in this section, neither side would be able to
   complete connectivity checks with the exception of the Relayed
   candidates.
















Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 58]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


6.  IPv4-IPv6 Transition

   This section describes how IPv6-only SIP user agents can communicate
   with IPv4-only SIP user agents.  While the techniques discussed in
   this draft primarily contain examples of traversing NATs to allow
   communications between hosts in private and public networks, they are
   by no means limited to such scenarios.  The same NAT traversal
   techniques can also be used to establish communication in a
   heterogeneous network environment -- e.g., communication between an
   IPv4 host and an IPv6 host.

6.1.  IPv4-IPv6 Transition for SIP Signaling

   IPv4-IPv6 translations at the SIP level usually take place at dual-
   stack proxies that have both IPv4 and IPv6 DNS entries.  Since this
   translations do not involve NATs that are placed in the middle of two
   SIP entities, they fall outside the scope of this document.  A
   detailed description of this type of translation can be found in
   [I-D.ietf-sipping-v6-transition]
































Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 59]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


7.  Security Considerations

   There are no Security Considerations beyond the ones inherited by
   reference.















































Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 60]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


8.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA Considerations.
















































Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 61]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


9.  IAB Considerations

   There are no IAB considerations.
















































Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 62]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the members of the IETF SIPPING WG
   for their comments and suggestions.  Expert review and detailed
   contribution including text was provided by Dan Wing who was
   supportive throughout.

   Detailed comments were provided by Vijay Gurbani, kaiduan xie, Remi
   Denis-Courmont, Hadriel Kaplan, Phillip Matthews, Spencer Dawkins and
   Hans Persson.









































Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 63]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-sip-connect-reuse]
              Gurbani, V., Mahy, R., and B. Tate, "Connection Reuse in
              the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              draft-ietf-sip-connect-reuse-14 (work in progress),
              August 2009.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3261]  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.

   [RFC3263]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3327]  Willis, D. and B. Hoeneisen, "Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP) Extension Header Field for Registering Non-Adjacent
              Contacts", RFC 3327, December 2002.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3581]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Extension to the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Symmetric Response
              Routing", RFC 3581, August 2003.

   [RFC3605]  Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute
              in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605,
              October 2003.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC4787]  Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
              (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
              RFC 4787, January 2007.



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 64]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   [RFC4961]  Wing, D., "Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)",
              BCP 131, RFC 4961, July 2007.

   [RFC5245]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
              (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
              Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
              April 2010.

   [RFC5389]  Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
              "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
              October 2008.

   [RFC5626]  Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and F. Audet, "Managing Client-
              Initiated Connections in the Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP)", RFC 5626, October 2009.

   [RFC5761]  Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
              Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761, April 2010.

   [RFC5766]  Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
              Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
              Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp]
              Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)",
              draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-media-path-middleboxes]
              Stucker, B. and H. Tschofenig, "Analysis of Middlebox
              Interactions for Signaling Protocol Communication  along
              the Media Path",
              draft-ietf-mmusic-media-path-middleboxes-02 (work in
              progress), March 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-sipping-v6-transition]
              Camarillo, G., "IPv6 Transition in the Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-07 (work
              in progress), August 2007.

   [RFC3424]  Daigle, L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral
              Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address
              Translation", RFC 3424, November 2002.

   [RFC5780]  MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery
              Using Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)",
              RFC 5780, May 2010.



Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 65]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


   [RFC5853]  Hautakorpi, J., Camarillo, G., Penfield, R., Hawrylyshen,
              A., and M. Bhatia, "Requirements from Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP) Session Border Control (SBC) Deployments",
              RFC 5853, April 2010.

   [UPnP-IGD]
              UPnP Forum, "Universal Plug and Play Internet Gateway
              Device v1.0", 2000,
              <http://www.upnp.org/standardizeddcps/igd.asp>.










































Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 66]

Internet-Draft                NAT Scenarios                    June 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Chris Boulton
   NS-Technologies

   Email: chris@ns-technologies.com


   Jonathan Rosenberg
   Skype

   Email: jdrosen@jdrosen.net


   Gonzalo Camarillo
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com


   Francois Audet
   Skype

   Email: francois.audet@skype.net
























Boulton, et al.         Expires December 12, 2010              [Page 67]


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