[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 RFC 5245
MMUSIC J. Rosenberg
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Expires: September 7, 2006 March 6, 2006
Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Methodology for Network
Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-07
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document describes a protocol for Network Address Translator
(NAT) traversal for multimedia session signaling protocols based on
the offer/answer model, such as the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP). This protocol is called Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE). ICE makes use of the Simple Traversal of UDP
through NAT (STUN), applying its binding discovery, connectivity
check and relay usages.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview of ICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Sending the Initial Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Receipt of the Offer and Generation of the Answer . . . . . 11
6. Processing the Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Common Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1 Gathering Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2 Prioritizing the Candidates and Choosing an Active One . . 16
7.3 Encoding Candidates into SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.4 Forming Candidate Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.5 Ordering the Candidate Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.6 Performing the Connectivity Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.7 Sending a Binding Request for Connectivity Checks . . . . 30
7.8 Receiving a Binding Request for Connectivity Checks . . . 31
7.9 Promoting a Candidate to Active . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.10 Learning New Candidates from Connectivity Checks . . . . 34
7.10.1 On Receipt of a Binding Request . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.10.2 On Receipt of a Binding Response . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.11 Subsequent Offer/Answer Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.11.1 Sending of a Subsequent Offer . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7.11.2 Receiving the Offer and Sending an Answer . . . . . 42
7.11.3 Receiving the Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.12 Binding Keepalives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.13 Sending Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
8. Guidelines for Usage with SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
9. Interactions with Forking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
10. Interactions with Preconditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
11. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
11.1 Basic Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
11.2 Advanced Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
12. Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
13.1 Attacks on Connectivity Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
13.2 Attacks on Address Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
13.3 Attacks on the Offer/Answer Exchanges . . . . . . . . . 82
13.4 Insider Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
13.4.1 The Voice Hammer Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
13.4.2 STUN Amplification Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
14.1 candidate Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
14.2 remote-candidate Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
14.3 ice-pwd Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
15. IAB Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
15.1 Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
15.2 Exit Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
15.3 Brittleness Introduced by ICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
15.4 Requirements for a Long Term Solution . . . . . . . . . 87
15.5 Issues with Existing NAPT Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
16. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
17.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
17.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 92
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
1. Introduction
RFC 3264 [4] defines a two-phase exchange of Session Descrption
Protocol (SDP) messages [5] for the purposes of establishment of
multimedia sessions. This offer/answer mechanism is used by
protocols such as the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [2].
Protocols using offer/answer are difficult to operate through Network
Address Translators (NAT). Because their purpose is to establish a
flow of media packets, they tend to carry IP addresses within their
messages, which is known to be problematic through NAT [17]. The
protocols also seek to create a media flow directly between
participants, so that there is no application layer intermediary
between them. This is done to reduce media latency, decrease packet
loss, and reduce the operational costs of deploying the application.
However, this is difficult to accomplish through NAT. A full
treatment of the reasons for this is beyond the scope of this
specification.
Numerous solutions have been proposed for allowing these protocols to
operate through NAT. These include Application Layer Gateways
(ALGs), the Middlebox Control Protocol [19], Simple Traversal of UDP
through NAT (STUN) [16] and its revision [13], the STUN Relay Usage
[14], and Realm Specific IP [20] [21] along with session description
extensions needed to make them work, such as the Session Description
Protocol (SDP) [5] attribute for the Real Time Control Protocol
(RTCP) [1]. Unfortunately, these techniques all have pros and cons
which make each one optimal in some network topologies, but a poor
choice in others. The result is that administrators and implementors
are making assumptions about the topologies of the networks in which
their solutions will be deployed. This introduces complexity and
brittleness into the system. What is needed is a single solution
which is flexible enough to work well in all situations.
This specification provides that solution for media streams
established by signaling protocols based on the offer-answer model.
It is called Interactive Connectivity Establishment, or ICE. ICE
makes use of STUN and its relay extension, commonly called TURN, but
uses them in a specific methodology which avoids many of the pitfalls
of using any one alone.
2. Terminology
Several new terms are introduced in this specification:
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Agent: As defined in RFC 3264, an agent is the protocol
implementation involved in the offer/answer exchange. There are
two agents involved in an offer/answer exchange.
Peer: From the perspective of one of the agents in a session, its
peer is the other agent. Specifically, from the perspective of
the offerer, the peer is the answerer. From the perspective of
the answerer, the peer is the offerer.
Transport Address: The combination of an IP address and port.
Local Transport Address: A local transport address is a transport
address that has been allocated from the operating system on the
host. This includes transport addresses obtained through Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs) and transport addresses obtained through
Realm Specific IP (RSIP) [20] (which lives at the operating system
level). Transport addresses are typically obtained by binding to
an interface.
m/c line: The media and connection lines in the SDP, which together
hold the transport address used for the receipt of media.
Derived Transport Address: A derived transport address is a transport
address which is derived from a local transport address. The
derived transport address is related to the associated local
transport address in that packets sent to the derived transport
address are received on the socket bound to its associated local
transport address. Derived addresses are obtained using protocols
like STUN, and more generally, any UNSAF protocol [22].
Reflexive Transport Address: As defined in [13], a transport address
learned by a client which identifies that client as seen by
another host on an IP network, typically a STUN server. When
there is an intervening NAT between the client and the other host,
the reflexive transport address represents the binding allocated
to the client on the public side of the NAT. Reflexive transport
addresses are learned from the MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute in STUN
Binding Responses and Allocate Responses [14], and are a type of
derived transport address.
Server Reflexive Transport Address: A server reflexive transport
address is a reflexive address that is reflected off of a server,
distinct from the peer, whose address is configured or learned by
the client prior to an offer/answer exchange.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Peer Reflexive Transport Address: A peer reflexive transport address
is a reflexive address that is reflected off of the peer. Peer
reflexive transport addresses are learned by connectivity checks.
Relayed Transport Address: A transport address that terminates on a
server, and is forwarded towards the client. The STUN Allocate
Request can be used to obtain a relayed transport address, for
example.
Associated Local Transport Address: When a peer sends a packet to a
transport address, the associated local transport address is the
local transport address at which those packets will actually
arrive. For a local transport address, its associated local
transport address is the same as the local transport address
itself. For reflexive and relayed transport addresses, however,
they are not the same. The associated local transport address is
the one from which the reflexive or relayed transport was derived.
Candidate: A sequence of transport addresses that form an atomic set
for usage with a particular media session. Here, atomic means
that all of transport addresses in the candidate need to work
before the candidate will be used for actual media transport. In
the case of RTP, there can be one or more transport addresses per
candidate. In the most common case, there are two - one for RTP,
and another for RTCP. If the agent doesn't use RTCP, there would
be just one. If Generic Forward Error Correction (FEC) [18] is in
use, there may be more than two. The transport addresses that
compose a candidate are all of the same type - local, server
reflexive, peer reflexive or relayed.
Local Candidate: A candidate whose transport addresses are local
transport addresses.
Server Reflexive Candidate: A candidate whose transport addresses are
server reflexive transport addresses.
Peer Reflexive Candidate: A candidate whose transport addresses are
peer reflexive transport addresses.
Relayed Candidate: A candidate whose transport addresses are relayed
transport addresses.
Generating Candidate: The candidate from which a peer reflexive
candidate is derived.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Active Candidate: The candidate that is in use for exchange of media.
This is the one that an agent places in the m/c line of an offer
or answer.
Candidate ID: An identifier for a candidate.
Component: When a media stream, and as a consequence, its candidate,
require several IP addresses and ports to work atomically, each of
the constituent IP addresses and ports represents a component of
that media stream. For example, RTP-based media streams typically
have two components - one for RTP, and one for RTCP.
Component ID: An integer, starting with one within each candidate and
incrementing by one for each component, which identifies the
component.
Transport Address ID (tid): An identifier for a transport address,
formed by concatenating the candidate ID with the component ID,
separated by a "colon".
Candidate Pair: The combination of a candidate from one agent along
with a candidate from its peer.
Native Candidate: From the perspective of each agent, the candidate
in a candidate pair which represents a set of addresses obtained
by that agent.
Remote Candidate: From the perspective of each agent, the candidate
in a candidate pair which represents the set of addresses obtained
by that agents peer.
Transport Address Pair: The combination of the transport address for
one component of a candidate with the transport address of the
same component for the matching candidate in a candidate pair.
Transport Address Pair ID: An identifier for a transport address
pair. Formed by concatenating the native transport address ID
with the remote transport address ID, separated by a "colon".
Matching Transport Address Pair: When a STUN Binding Request is
received on a local transport address, the matching transport
address pair is the transport address pair whose connectivity is
being checked by that Binding Request.
Candidate Pair Priority Ordering: An ordering of candidate pairs
based on a combination of the qvalues of each candidate and the
candidate IDs of each candidate.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Candidate Pair Check Ordering: An ordering of candidate pairs that is
similar to the candidate pair priority ordering, except that the
active candidate appears at the top of the list, regardless of its
priority.
Transport Address Pair Check Ordering: An ordering of transport
address pairs that determines the sequence of connectivity checks
performed for the pairs.
Transport Address Pair Count: The number of transport address pairs
in a candidate pair. This is equal to the minimum of the number
of transport addresses in the native candidate and the number of
transport addresses in the remote candidate.
3. Overview of ICE
ICE makes the fundamental assumption that clients exist in a network
of segmented connectivity. This segmentation is the result of a
number of addressing realms in which a client can simultaneously be
connected. We use "realms" here in the broadest sense. A realm is
defined purely by connectivity. Two clients are in the same realm
if, when they exchange the addresses each has in that realm, they are
able to send packets to each other. This includes IPv6 and IPv4
realms, which actually use different address spaces, in addition to
private networks connected to the public Internet through NAT.
The key assumption in ICE is that a client cannot know, apriori,
which address realms it shares with any peer it may wish to
communicate with. Therefore, in order to communicate, it has to try
connecting to addresses in all of the realms.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Agent A STUN Servers Agent B
|(1) Gather Addresses | |
|-------------------->| |
|(2) Offer | |
|------------------------------------------>|
| |(3) Gather Addresses |
| |<--------------------|
|(4) Answer | |
|<------------------------------------------|
|(5) STUN Check | |
|<------------------------------------------|
|(6) STUN Check | |
|------------------------------------------>|
|(7) Media | |
|<------------------------------------------|
|(8) Media | |
|------------------------------------------>|
|(9) Offer | |
|------------------------------------------>|
|(10) Answer | |
|<------------------------------------------|
Figure 1
The basic flow of operation for ICE is shown in Figure 1. Before the
offerer establishes a session, it obtains local transport addresses
from its operating system on as many interfaces as it has access to.
These interfaces can include IPv4 and IPv6 interfaces, in addition to
Virtual Private Network (VPN) interfaces or ones associated with
RSIP. It then obtains transport addresses for the media from each
interface. Though ICE can support any type of transport protocol,
this specification only defines mechanisms for UDP. In addition, the
agent obtains server reflexive and relayed transport addresses.
These are usually obtained through a single STUN Allocate request,
which provides both. These requests are paced at a fixed rate in
order to limit network load and avoid NAT overload. The local,
server reflexive and relayed transport addresses are formed into
candidates, each of which represents a possible set of transport
addresses that might be viable for a media stream.
Each candidate is listed in a set of a=candidate attributes in the
offer. Each candidate is given a priority. Priority is a matter of
local policy, but typically, lowest priority would be given to
relayed transport addresses. Each candidate is also assigned a
distinct ID, called a candidate ID.
The agent will choose one of its candidates as its active candidate
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
for inclusion in the connection and media lines in the offer. Media
can be sent to this candidate immediately following its validation.
Media can also be sent to a candidate that is not active but has been
validated. Media is not sent without validation in order to avoid
denial-of-service attacks. In particular, without ICE, an offerer
can send an offer to another agent, and list the IP address and port
of a target in the offer. If the agent is an automata that answers a
call automatically, it will do so and then proceed to send media to
the target. This provides substantial packet amplifications. ICE
fixes this by requiring that an agent never send media packets unless
it has sent a STUN message towards the target of the RTP packets, and
received a reply from that target Section 7.13.
The offer is then sent to the answerer. This specification does not
address the issue of how the signaling messages themselves traverse
NAT. It is assumed that signaling protocol specific mechanisms are
used for that purpose. The answerer follows a similar process as the
offerer followed; it obtains addresses from local interfaces, obtains
derived transport addresses from those, and then groups them into
candidates for inclusion in a=candidate attributes in the answer. It
picks one candidate as its active candidate and places it into the
m/c line in the answer.
Once the offer/answer exchange has completed, both agents pair up the
candidates, and then determine an ordered set of transport address
pairs. This ordering is based primarily on the priority of the
candidates, with the exception of the active candidate, whose
addresses are at the top of the list. Both agents start at the top
of this list, beginning a connectivity check for that transport
address pair. At a fixed interval, checks for the next transport
address on the list begin. This results in a pacing of the
connectivity checks. These connectivity checks are performed through
peer-to-peer STUN requests, sent from one agent to the other. In
addition to pacing the checks out at regular intervals, the offerer
will generate a connectivity check for a transport address pair when
it receives one from its peer. As soon as the active candidate has
been verified by the STUN checks, media can begin to flow. Once a
higher priority candidate has been verified by the offerer, it ceases
additional connectivity checks, begins using that candidate for
media, and sends an updated offer which promotes this higher priority
candidate to the m/c-line. That candidate is also listed in
a=candidate attributes, resulting in periodic STUN keepalives through
the duration of the media session.
If an agent receives a STUN connectivity check with a new source IP
address and port, or a response to such a check with a new IP address
and port indicated in the MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute, this new address
might be a viable candidate for the receipt of media. This happens
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
when there is a NAT with an address dependent or address and port
dependent mapping property [37] between the agents. In such a case,
the agents algorithmically construct a new candidate. Like other
candidates, connectivity checks begin for it, and if they succeed,
its transport addresses can be used for receipt of media by promoting
it to the m/c-line.
The gathering of addresses and connectivity checks take time. As a
consequence, in order to have minimal impact on the call setup time
or post-pickup delay for SIP, these offer/answer exchanges and checks
happen while the call is ringing.
4. Sending the Initial Offer
When an agent wishes to begin a session by sending an initial offer,
it starts by gathering transport addresses, as described in
Section 7.1. This will produce a set of candidates, including local
ones, server reflexive ones, and relayed ones.
This process of gathering candidates can actually happen at any time
before sending the initial offer. A agent can pre-gather transport
addresses, using a user interface cue (such as picking up the phone,
or entry into an address book) as a hint that communications is
imminent. Doing so eliminates any additional perceivable call setup
delays due to address gathering.
When it comes time to offer communications, the agent determines a
priority for each candidate and identifies the active candidate that
will be used for receipt of media, as described in Section 7.2.
The next step is to construct the offer message. For each media
stream, it places its candidates into a=candidate attributes in the
offer and puts its active candidate into the m/c line. The process
for doing this is described in Section 7.3. The offer is then sent.
5. Receipt of the Offer and Generation of the Answer
Upon receipt of the offer message, the agent checks if the offer
contains any a=candidate attributes. If the offer does, the offerer
supports ICE. In that case, it starts gathering candidates, as
described in Section 7.1, and prioritizes them as described in
Section 7.2. This processing is done immediately on receipt of the
offer, to prepare for the case where the user should accept the call,
or early media needs to be generated. By gathering candidates (and
performing connectivity checks) while the user is being alerted to
the request for communications, session establishment delays are
reduced.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
The agent then constructs its answer, encoding its candidates into
a=candidate attributes and including the active one in the m/c-line,
as described in Section 7.3. The agent then forms candidate pairs as
described in Section 7.4. These are ordered as described in
Section 7.5. The agent then begins connectivity checks, as described
in Section 7.6. It follows the logic in Section 7.10 on receipt of
Binding Requests and responses to learn new candidates from the
checks themselves.
Transmission of media is performed according to the procedures in
Section 7.13.
6. Processing the Answer
There are two possible cases for processing of the answer. If the
answerer did not support ICE, the answer will not contain any
a=candidate attributes. As a result, the offerer knows that it
cannot perform its connectivity checks. In this case, it proceeds
with normal media processing as if ICE was not in use. The
procedures for sending media, described in Section 7.13, MUST be
followed however.
If the answer contains candidates, it implies that the answerer
supports ICE. The offerer then forms candidate pairs as described in
Section 7.4. These are ordered as described in Section 7.5. The
agent then begins connectivity checks, as described in Section 7.6.
It follows the logic in Section 7.10 on receipt of Binding Requests
and responses to learn new candidates from the checks themselves.
Transmission of media is performed according to the procedures in
Section 7.13.
7. Common Procedures
This section discusses procedures that are common between offerer and
answerer.
7.1 Gathering Candidates
An agent gathers candidates when it believes that communications is
imminent. For offerers, this occurs before sending an offer
(Section 4). For answerers, it occurs before sending an answer
(Section 5).
Each candidate has one or more components, each of which is
associated with a sequence number, starting at 1 for the first
component of each candidate, and incrementing by 1 for each
additional component within that candidate. These components
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
represent a set of transport addresses for which connectivity must be
validated. For a particular media stream, all of the candidates
SHOULD have the same number of components. The number of components
that are needed are a function of the type of media stream. All of
the components in a candidate MUST be of the same type - server
reflexive, relayed, or local, and obtained from the same server in
the case of server reflexive or relayed candidates. For local
candidates, each component MUST be obtained from the same interface.
For traditional RTP-based media streams, it is RECOMMENDED that there
be two components per candidate - one for RTP and one for RTCP. The
component with the component ID of 1 MUST be RTP, and the one with
component ID of 2 MUST be RTCP. If an agent doesn't implement RTCP,
it SHOULD have a single component for the RTP stream (which will have
a component ID of 1 by definition). Each component of a candidate
has a single transport address.
The first step is to gather local candidates. Local candidates are
obtained by binding to ephemeral ports on an interface (physical or
virtual, including VPN interfaces) on the host. The process for
gathering local candidates depends on the transport protocol.
Procedures are specified here for UDP. Extensions to ICE that define
procedures for other transport protocols MUST specify how local
transport addresses are gathered.
For each UDP media stream the agent wishes to use, the agent SHOULD
obtain a set of candidates (one for each interface) by binding to N
ephemeral UDP ports on each interface, where N is the number of
components needed for the candidate. For RTP, N is typically two.
If a host has K local interfaces, this will result in K candidates
for each UDP stream, requiring K*N local transport addresses.
Once the agent has obtained local candidates, it obtains candidates
with derived transport addresses. The process for gathering derived
candidates depends on the transport protocol. Procedures are
specified here for UDP. Extensions to ICE that define procedures for
other transport protocols MUST specify how derived transport
addresses are gathered.
Agents which serve end users directly, such as softphones,
hardphones, terminal adapters and so on, MUST implement the STUN
Binding Discovery usage and SHOULD use it to obtain server reflexive
candidates. These devices SHOULD implement the STUN Relay usage, and
SHOULD use its Allocate request to obtain both server reflexive and
relayed candidates. They MAY implement and MAY use other protocols
that provide server reflexive or relayed transport addresses, such as
TEREDO [33].
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
The requirement to use the relay Usage is at SHOULD strength to allow
for provider variation. If it is not to be used, it is RECOMMENDED
that it be implemented and just disabled through configuration, so
that it can re-enabled through configuration if conditions change in
the future.
Agents which represent network servers under the control of a service
provider, such as gateways to the telephone network, media servers,
or conferencing servers that are targeted at deployment only in
networks with public IP addresses MAY use the STUN Binding Discovery
usage and relay usage, or other similar protocols to obtain
candidates.
Why would these types of endpoints even bother to implement ICE?
The answer is that such an implementation greatly facilitates NAT
traversal for clients that connect to it. The ability to process
STUN connectivity checks allows for clients to obtain peer
reflexive transport addresses that can be used by the network
server to reach them without a relay, even through NATs with
restrictive mapping and filtering policies. Furthermore,
implementation of the STUN connectivity checks allows for NAT
bindings along the way to be kept open. ICE also provides
numerous security properties that are independent of NAT
traversal, and would benefit any multimedia endpoint. See
Section 13 for a discussion on these benefits.
Obtaining derived candidates requires transmission of packets which
have the effect of creating bindings on NAT devices between the
client and the STUN servers. Experience has shown that many NAT
devices have upper limits on the rate at which they will create new
bindings. Furthermore, transmission of these packets on the network
makes use of bandwidth and needs to be rate limited by the agent. As
a consequence, a client SHOULD pace its STUN transactions, such that
the start of each new transaction occurs at least Ta seconds after
the start of the previous transaction. The value of Ta SHOULD be
configurable, and SHOULD have a default of 50ms. Note that this
pacing applies only to the start of a new transaction; pacing of
retransmissions within a STUN transaction is governed by the
retransmission rules defined by STUN.
Derived candidates can be obtained from the STUN Binding Discovery
usage or the STUN Relay usage. The latter is preferred since it will
provide the client with both a server reflexive and a relayed
transport address with a single transaction. It is possible that
some STUN servers will only support the Relay usage or only the
Binding Discovery usage, in which case a client might be configured
with different servers depending on the usage.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
To obtain both server reflexive and relayed candidates using the STUN
Relay Usage, the client takes a local UDP candidate, and for each
configured STUN server, produces both candidates. It is anticipated
that clients may have a multiplicity of STUN servers configured or
discovered in network environments where there are multiple layers of
NAT, and that layering is known to the provider of the client. To
obtain these candidates, for each configured STUN server, the client
initiates an Allocate Request transaction using the procedures of
Section 8.1.2 of [14] from each transport address of a particular
local candidate. The Allocate Response will provide the client with
its server reflexive transport address in the MAPPED-ADDRESS
attribute and its relayed transport address in the RELAY-ADDRESS
attribute. Once the Allocate requests have given a client a relayed
transport address for all transport addresses in a relayed candidate,
there is no reason for a client to obtain further relayed candidates
through the same STUN server. Thus, if there are other local
candidates from which the client has not yet obtained relayed
transport address, the client SHOULD NOT bother to obtain them.
Instead, it SHOULD use the STUN Binding Discovery usage and obtain
just server reflexive addresses from that STUN server. The order in
which local candidates are tried against the STUN server to obtain
relayed candidates is a matter of local policy.
To obtain server reflexice candidates using the STUN Binding
Discovery usage, the client takes a local UDP candidate, and for each
configured STUN server, produces a server reflexive candidate. To
produce the server reflexive candidate from the local candidate, it
follows the procedures of Section XX of [13] for each local transport
address in the local candidate. The Binding Response will provide
the client with its server reflexive transport address in the MAPPED-
ADDRESS attribute. If the client had K local candidates, this will
produce S*K server reflexive candidates, where S is the number of
STUN servers.
Since a client will pace its STUN transactions (both Binding and
Allocate requests) at a total rate of one new transaction every Ta
seconds, it will take a certain amount of time to complete the
address gathering phase. It is RECOMMENDED that implementations have
a configurable upper bound on the total amount of time allotted to
address gathering. Any transactions not completed at that point
SHOULD be abandoned, but MAY continue and be used in an updated offer
once they complete. A default value of 5s is RECOMMENDED. Since the
total number of allocations that could be done (based on the number
of STUN servers and local interfaces) might exceed this value,
clients SHOULD prioritize their local candidates and STUN servers,
performing transactions from the highest priority local candidates to
the highest priority STUN servers first. A STUN server would
typically be higher priority if it supports the STUN Relay Usage,
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
since such a server provides two transport addresses with one
transaction.
Once the allocations are complete, any redundant candidates are
discarded. Candidate A is redundant with candidate B if the
transport addresses for each component of each component match, and
each component of their associated local candidates match. For
example, consider a set of candidates with a single component. One
candidate is a local candidate, and its one component has a transport
address of 10.0.1.1:4458. A reflexive transport address is derived
from this local transport address, producing a 10.0.1.1:4458. These
two candidates are identical, and also have identical associated
local transport addresses, so they are redundant. However, in a more
complicated case, consider a multi-homed host, with one interface at
192.168.1.1 and another at 10.0.1.1. The 192.168 network is natted,
with its "public" side in another net-10 private network. The client
obtains two local candidates, A and B, with transport addresses of
192.168.1.1:2376 and 10.0.1.1:7266 respectively. A server reflexive
transport address is derived from A through a STUN query, and it
happens to produce 10.0.1.1:7266. Call this candidate C. Candidate C
is not redundant with candidate B, since they have different
associated local transport addresses.
7.2 Prioritizing the Candidates and Choosing an Active One
The prioritization process takes the set of candidates and associates
each with a priority. This priority reflects the desire that the
agent has to receive media at that candidate, and is assigned as a
value from 0 to 1 (1 being most preferred). Priorities are ordinal,
so that their significance is only meaningful relative to other
candidates from that agent for a particular media stream. Candidates
MAY have the same priority. However, it is RECOMMENDED that each
candidate have a distinct priority. Doing so improves the efficiency
of ICE.
This specification makes no normative statements on how the
prioritization is done. However, some useful guidelines are
suggested on how such a prioritization can be determined.
One criteria for choosing one candidate over another is whether or
not that candidate involves the use of an intermediary. That is, if
media is sent to that candidate, will the media first transit an
intermediate server before being received. Relayed candidates are
clearly one type of candidates that involve an intermediary. Another
are local candidates associated with a VPN server. When media is
transited through an intermediary, it can increase the latency
between transmission and reception. It can increase the packet
losses, because of the additional router hops that may be taken. It
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
may increase the cost of providing service, since media will be
routed in and right back out of an intermediary run by the provider.
If these concerns are important, candidates with this property can be
listed with lower priority.
Another criteria for choosing one candidate over another is IP
address family. ICE works with both IPv4 and IPv6. It therefore
provides a transition mechanism that allows dual-stack hosts to
prefer connectivity over IPv6, but to fall back to IPv4 in case the
v6 networks are disconnected (due, for example, to a failure in a
6to4 relay) [25]. It can also help with hosts that have both a
native IPv6 address and a 6to4 address. In such a case, higher
priority could be afforded to the native v6 address, followed by the
6to4 address, followed by a native v4 address. This allows a site to
obtain and begin using native v6 addresses immediately, yet still
fallback to 6to4 addresses when communicating with agents in other
sites that do not yet have native v6 connectivity.
Another criteria for choosing one candidate over another is security.
If a user is a telecommuter, and therefore connected to their
corporate network and a local home network, they may prefer their
voice traffic to be routed over the VPN in order to keep it on the
corporate network when communicating within the enterprise, but use
the local network when communicating with users outside of the
enterprise.
Another criteria for choosing one address over another is topological
awareness. This is most useful for candidates that make use of
relays. In those cases, if an agent has preconfigured or dynamically
discovered knowledge of the topological proximity of the relays to
itself, it can use that to select closer relays with higher priority.
There may be transport-specific reasons for preferring one candidate
over another. In such a case, specifications defining usage of ICE
with other transport protocols SHOULD document such considerations.
Once the candidates have been prioritized, one may be selected as the
active one. This is the candidate that will be used for actual
exchange of media if and when its validated, until a higher priority
candidate is validated. The active candidate will also be used to
receive media from ICE-unaware peers. As such, it is RECOMMENDED
that one be chosen based on the likelihood of that candidate to work
with the peer that is being contacted. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to ascertain which candidate that might be. As an example,
consider a user within an enterprise. To reach non-ICE capable
agents within the enterprise, a local candidate has to be used, since
the enterprise policies may prevent communication between elements
using a relay on the public network. However, when communicating to
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
peers outside of the enterprise, a relayed candidate from a
publically accessible STUN server is needed.
Indeed, the difficulty in picking just one address that will work is
the whole problem that motivated the development of this
specification in the first place. As such, it is RECOMMENDED that
the active candidate be a relayed candidate from a STUN server
providing public IP addresses in response to an Allocate request.
Furthermore, ICE is only truly effective when it is supported on both
sides of the session. It is therefore most prudent to deploy it to
close-knit communities as a whole, rather than piecemeal. In the
example above, this would mean that ICE would ideally be deployed
completely within the enterprise, rather than just to parts of it.
An additional consideration for selection of the active candidate is
the switching of media stream destinations between the initial offer
and the subsequent offer. If the active candidate pair in the
initial offer is being validated, media will flow to that pair once
it is validated. When the ICE checks complete and yield a higher
priority candidate pair, media will begin to flow to it (there will
also be an updated offer/answer exchange that changes the active
candidate). This will result in a change in the destination of the
media packets. This may also cause a different path for the media
packets. That path might have different delay and jitter
characteristics. As a consequence, the jitter buffers may see a
glitch, causing possible media artifacts. If these issues are a
concern, the initial offer MAY omit an active candidate. In such a
case, an updated offer will need to be sent immediately when
communicating with an ICE-unaware agent, setting an active candidate.
There may be transport-specific reasons for selection of an active
candidate. In such a case, specifications defining usage of ICE with
other transport protocols SHOULD document such considerations.
7.3 Encoding Candidates into SDP
For each candidate for a media stream, the agent includes a series of
a=candidate attributes as media-level attributes, one for each
component in the candidate. Each candidate has a unique identifier,
called the candidate-id. The candidate-id MUST be chosen randomly
and contain at least 24 bits of randomness (this does not mean that
the candidate-id is 24 bits long; just that it has at least 24 bits
of randomness). It is chosen only when the candidate is placed into
the SDP for the first time; subsequent offers or answers within the
same session containing that same candidate MUST use the same
candidate-id used previously. 24 bits is sufficient because the
candidate-id is not providing security (the much more random password
is). It is needed only to prevent a possible simultaneous selection
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
by two agents within a private network for the useful lifetime of the
software or hardware.
Each component of the candidate has an identifier, called the
component-id. The component-id is a sequence number. For each
candidate, it starts at one, and increments by one for each
component. As discussed below, ICE will perform connectivity checks
such that, between a pair of candidates, checks only occur between
transport addresses with the same component-id. As a consequence, if
one candidate has three components, and it is paired with a candidate
that has two, there will only be two transport address pairs and two
connectivity checks.
ICE will work without a standardized mapping between the components
of a media stream and the numerical value of the component-id. This
allows ICE to be used with media streams with multiple components
without development of standards around such a mapping. However, a
specific mapping has been defined in this specification for RTP -
component-id 1 corresponds to RTP, and component-id of 2 corresponds
to RTCP. Like the candidate-id, the component-id is assigned at the
time the candidate is first placed into the SDP; subsequent offers or
answers within the same session containing that same candidate MUST
use the same component-id used previously.
The transport, addr and port of the a=candidate attribute (all
defined in Section 12) are set to the transport protocol, unicast
address and port of the tranport address. A Fully Qualified Domain
Name (FQDN) for a host MAY be used in place of a unicast address. In
that case, when receiving an offer or answer containing an FQDN in an
a=candidate attribute, the FQDN is looked up in the DNS using an A or
AAAA record, and the resulting IP address is used for the remainder
of ICE processing. The qvalue is set to the priority of the
candidate, and MUST be the same for all components of the candidate.
All of the candidates share a password that is used for securing the
STUN connectivity checks. This password MUST be chosen randomly with
128 bits of randomness (though it can be longer than 128 bits). This
password is contained in the a=ice-pwd attribute, present as a
session level attribute. A new password MUST be selected for each
new session, and MUST be present with the same value in all
subsequent offers and answers from the agent. The converse is true;
if a new offer is generated as part of a new multimedia session, a
new password MUST be used even if the transport address from a
previous session was being recycled.
The combination of candidate-id and component-id uniquely identify
each transport address. As a consequence, each transport address has
a unique identifier, called the tid. The tid is formed by
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
concatenating the candidate-id with the component-id, separated by
the colon (":"). The tid is not explicitly encoded in the SDP; it is
derived from the candidate-id and component-id, which are present in
the SDP. The usage of the colon as a separator allows the
candidate-id and component-id to be extracted from the tid, since the
colon is not a valid character for the candidate-id.
The tid gets combined, through further concatenation, with the tid of
a transport address from the remote candidate (separated again by
another colon) to form the username that is placed in the STUN checks
between the peers. This allows the STUN message to uniquely identify
the pairing whose connectivity it is checking. The tid is needed as
a unique identifier because the IP address within the candidate fails
to provide that uniqueness as a consequence of NAT.
Consider agents A, B, and C. A and B are within private enterprise 1,
which is using 10.0.0.0/8. C is within private enterprise 2, which
is also using 10.0.0.0/8. As it turns out, B and C both have IP
address 10.0.1.1. A sends an offer to C. C, in its answer, provides
A with its transport addresses. In this case, thats 10.0.1.1:8866
and 8877. As it turns out, B is in a session at that same time, and
is also using 10.0.1.1:8866 and 8877. This means that B is prepared
to accept STUN messages on those ports, just as C is. A will send a
STUN request to 10.0.1.1:8866 and 8877. However, these do not go to
C as expected. Instead, they go to B. If B just replied to them, A
would believe it has connectivity to C, when in fact it has
connectivity to a completely different user, B. To fix this, tid
takes on the role of a unique identifier. C provides A with an
identifier for its transport address, and A provides one to C. A
concatenates these two identifiers (with a colon between) and uses
the result as the username in its STUN query to 10.0.1.1:8866. This
STUN query arrives at B. However, the username is unknown to B, and
so the request is rejected. A treats the rejected STUN request as if
there were no connectivity to C (which is actually true). Therefore,
the error is avoided.
An unfortunate consequence of the non-uniqueness of IP addresses is
that, in the above example, B might not even be an ICE agent. It
could be any host, and the port to which the STUN packet is directed
could be any ephemeral port on that host. If there is an application
listening on this socket for packets, and it is not prepared to
handle malformed packets for whatever protocol is in use, the
operation of that application could be affected. Fortunately, since
the ports exchanged in SDP are ephemeral and ususally drawn from the
dynamic or registered range, the odds are good that the port is not
used to run a server on host B, but rather is the agent side of some
protocol. This decreases the probability of hitting a port in-use,
due to the transient nature of port usage in this range. However,
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
the possibility of a problem does exist, and network deployers should
be prepared for it. Note that this is not a problem specific to ICE;
stray packets can arrive at a port at any time for any type of
protocol, especially ones on the public Internet. As such, this
requirement is just restating a general design guideline for Internet
applications - be prepared for unknown packets on any port.
The active candidate, if there is one, is placed into the m/c lines
of the SDP. For RTP streams, this is done by placing the RTP address
and port into the c and m lines in the SDP respectively. If the
agent is utilizing RTCP, it MUST encode its address and port using
the a=rtcp attribute as defined in RFC 3605 [1]. If RTCP is not in
use, the agent MUST signal that using b=RS:0 and b=RR:0 as defined in
RFC 3556 [6].
If there is no active candidate, the agent MUST include an a=inactive
attribute. The RTP address and port in the m/c-line is
inconsequential, since it won't be used.
Encoding of candidates may involve transport protocol specific
considerations. There are none for UDP. However, extensions that
define usage of ICE with other transport protocols SHOULD specify any
special encoding considerations.
Once an offer or answer are sent, an agent MUST be prepared to
receive both STUN and media packets on each candidate. As discussed
in Section 7.13, media packets can be sent to a candidate prior to
its promotion to active.
7.4 Forming Candidate Pairs
Once the offer/answer exchange has completed, both agents will have a
set of candidates for each media stream. Each agent forms a set of
candidate pairs for each media stream by combining each of its
candidates with each of the candidates of its peer. Candidates can
be paired up only if their transport protocols are identical. If an
offer/answer exchange took place for a session comprised of an audio
and a video stream, and each agent had two candidates per media
stream, there would be 8 candidate pairs, 4 for audio and 4 for
video. One agent can offer two candidates for a media stream, and
the answer can contain three candidates for the same media stream.
In that case, there would be six candidate pairs.
Each candidate has a number of components, each of which has a
transport address. Within a candidate pair, the components
themselves are paired up such that transport addresses with the same
component ID are combined to form a transport address pair.
Returning to the previous example, for each of the 8 candidate pairs,
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
there would be two transport address pairs - one for RTP, and one for
RTCP. If one candidate has more components than the other, those
extra components will not be part of a transport address pair, won't
be validated, and will effectively be treated as if they weren't
included in the candidate pair in the first place.
The relationship between a candidate, candidate pair, transport
address, transport address pair and component are shown in Figure 2.
This figure shows the relationships as seen by the agent that owns
the candidate with candidate ID "L". This candidate has two
components with transport addresses A and B respectively. This
candidate is called the native candidate, since it is the one owned
by the agent in question. The candidate owned by its peer is called
the remote candidate. As the figure shows, there is a single
candidate pair, and two components in each candidate. The native
candidate has a candidate-id of "L", and the remote candidate has a
candidate-id of "R". Since the two component-ids are 1 and 2,
candidate "L" has two transport addresses with transport address IDs
of "L:1" and "L:2" respectively. Similarly, candidate "R" has two
transport addresses with transport address IDs of "R:1" and "R:2"
respectively.
Furthermore, each transport address pair is associated with an ID,
the transport address pair ID. This ID is equal to the concatenation
of the tid of the native transport address with the tid of the remote
transport address, separated by a colon. This means that the
identifiers are seen differenly for each agent. For the agent that
owns candidate "L", there are two transport address pairs. One
contains transport address "L:1" and "R:1", with a transport address
pair ID of "L:1:R:1". The other contains transport address "L:2" and
"R:2", with a transport address pair ID of "L:2:R:2". For the agent
that owns candidate "R", the identifiers for these two transport
address pairs are reversed; it would be "R:1:L:1" for the first one
and "R:2:L:2" for the second.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
...............................................
. .
. .
. ............. ............. .
. . tid=L:1 . . tid=R:1 . .
. . -- . . -- . . component
component. . | A|------------------------| C| . . id=1
id=1 . . -- . Transport . -- . .
. . . Address . . .
. . . Pair . . .
. . . id=L:1:R:1 . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . tid=L:2 . . tid=R:2 . .
component . . -- . . -- . .
id=2 . . | B|------------------------| D| component
. . -- . Transport . -- . . id=2
. . . Address . . .
. . . Pair . . .
. . . id=L:2:R:2 . . .
. . . . . .
. ............. ............. .
. Native Remote .
. Candidate Candidate .
. id=L id=R .
. .
. .
...............................................
Candidate Pair
Figure 2
If a candidate pair was created as a consequence of an offer
generated by an agent, then that agent is said to be the offerer of
that candidate pair and all of its transport address pairs.
Similarly, the other agent is said to be the answerer of that
candidate pair and all of its transport address pairs. As a
consequence, each agent has a particular role, either offerer or
answerer, for each transport address pair. This role is important;
when a candidate pair is to be promoted to active, the offerer is the
one which performs the updated offer.
7.5 Ordering the Candidate Pairs
For the same reason that the STUN transactions during address
gathering are paced at a rate of Ta transactions per second, so too
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
are the connectivity checks paced, also at a rate of Ta transactions
per second. However, in order to rapidly converge on a valid
candidate pair that is mutually desirable, the candidate pairs are
ordered, and the checks start with the candidate pair at the top of
the list. Rapid convergence of ICE depends on both the offerer and
answerer coming to the same conclusion on the ordering of candidate
pairs.
Recall that when each candidate is encoded into SDP, it contains a
qvalue between 1 and 0, with 1 being the highest priority. Peer
reflexive candidates, learned through the procedures described in
Section 7.10 also have a priority between 0 and 1. For each media
stream, the native candidates are ordered based on their qvalues,
with higher q-values coming first. Amongst candidates with the same
qvalue, they are ordered based on candidate ID, using reverse
lexicographic order, where C1 is placed before C2, if C2 precedes C1
lexicographically. Lexicographic order can be viewed as a numerical
ordering where each "digit" is actually a number in numerical base
256, with the mapping of characters to numerical value being defined
by their ASCII encoding. For example, the candidate with candidate
ID agD is greater than the candidate with ID ad7, and both of those
are greater than the candidate with ID zz. Consequently, if these
three candidates had equal q-values, they would be ordered as agD,
ad7, zz - reverse of their lexicographic order.
The usage of a reverse lexicographic order is important; as discussed
in Section 13, it allows peer-derived candidates to be preferred over
native ones.
The result of these ordering rules will be an ordered list of
candidates. The first candidate in this list is given a sequence
number of 1, the next is given a sequence number of 2, and so on.
This same procedure is done for the remote candidates. The result is
that each candidate pair has two sequence numbers, one for the native
candidate, and one for the remote candidate.
First, all of the candidate pairs for whom the smaller of the two
sequence numbers equals 1 are taken first. Then, all of those for
whom the smaller of the two sequence numbers equals 2 are taken next,
and so on. Amongst those pairs that share the same value for their
smaller sequence number, they are ordered by the larger of their two
sequence numbers (smallest first). Amongst those pairs that share
the same value for their smaller sequence number and the same value
for their larger sequence number, the larger of the two candidate IDs
in each pair are selected, and the pairs are lexicographically
ordered in reverse by that candidate ID, largest first.
As an example, consider two agents, A and B. One offers two
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
candidates for a media stream with candidate IDs of "g9" and "88",
with q-values of 1.0 and 0.8 respectively. The other answers with
three candidates with candidate IDs of "h8", "65" and "kl", with
q-values of 0.3, 0.2 and 0.1 respectively. The following table shows
the rank ordering of the six candidate pairs. The column labeled
"Max SN" is the larger of the two sequence numbers in the candidate
pair, and "Min SN" is the minimum. The column labeled "Max Cand.
ID" is the value of the larger of the two candidate IDs in the
candidate pair.
Order A A A B B B Max
Cand. Cand. Cand. Cand. Cand. Cand. Max Min Cand.
ID q-value SN ID q-value SN SN SN ID
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 g9 1.0 1 h8 0.3 1 1 1 h8
2 88 0.8 2 h8 0.3 1 2 1 h8
3 g9 1.0 1 65 0.2 2 2 1 g9
4 g9 1.0 1 k1 0.1 3 3 1 k1
5 88 0.8 2 65 0.2 2 2 2 88
6 88 0.8 2 k1 0.1 3 3 2 k1
This ordering is then modified slightly by taking the candidate pair
corresponding to the active candidate, if there is one, and promoting
it to the top of the list. To find this candidate pair, the agent
looks for candidate pairs whose native and remote transport addresses
match the native and remote transport addresses in the m/c-line. It
is possible that multiple candidates match; this happens in the case
where an agent obtained the same derived transport address from
different local transport addresses. In such a case, the agent
should pick one of the matching candidates.
Putting the active candidate at the top of the list allows it to be
tested first. As discussed below, media is not sent until the
corresponding candidate is verified, necessitating rapid verification
of the active candidate. This modified ordering is called the
candidate pair check ordering, since it reflects the order in which
connectivity checks will be done. If there was no active candidate,
the candidate pair check ordering and the candidate pair priority
ordering will be identical.
Within each candidate pair there will be a set of transport address
pairs, one for each component ID. Those pairs are ordered by
component ID. The result is an absolute ordering of all transport
address pairs for a media stream, sorted first by the order of their
candidate pairs (with the exception of the active candidate),
followed by the order of their component IDs. This ordering is
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
called the transport address pair check ordering.
Ordering of candidates may involve transport protocol specific
considerations. There are none for UDP. However, extensions that
define usage of ICE with other transport protocols SHOULD specify any
special ordering considerations.
7.6 Performing the Connectivity Checks
Connectivity checks are a STUN usage defined in [13]. They are
performed by sending peer-to-peer STUN Binding Requests. These
checks result in a candidate progressing through a state machine that
captures the progress of connectivity checks. The specific state
machine and the procedures for the connectivity checks are specific
to the transport protocol. This specification defines rules for UDP.
Extensions to ICE that describe other transport protocols SHOULD
describe the state machine and the procedures for connectivity
checks.
The set of states visited by the offerer and answerer are depicted
graphically in Figure 4
|
|Start
|
|
V
+------------+
| |
| |
| Waiting |----------------+
| | |
| | |
+------------+ |
| |
| Timer Ta | Get Req
| --------. | -------
| Send Req Get Req | Send Res,
V ------- | Send Req
Get Res +------------+ Send Res, |
------- | | Re-Xmit |
- | | Req |
+---------------| Testing |-----------+ |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| +------------+ | |
| | | |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
| | Error | |
| | ----- | |
Timer Tr | | - | |
-------- V V V V
Send Req +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
+-----| | | | | |
| | Recv- | | | | Send- |
| | Valid |------->| Invalid |<-------| Valid |
| | | | | | |
+---->| | Error | | Error | |
+------------+ ----- +------------+ ----- +------------+
| - ^ - |
| | Error |
| | ----- |
| | - |
| +------------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
+-------------->| Valid |<-------------+
Get Req | | Get Res
------- | | -------
Send Res +------------+ -
| ^
| |
| |
+-------+
Timer Tr
--------
Send Req
Figure 4
The state machine has six states - waiting, testing, Recv-Valid,
Send-Valid, Valid and Invalid. Initially, all transport address
pairs start in the waiting state. In this state, the agent waits for
one of two events - a chance to send a Binding Request, or receipt of
a Binding Request.
Since there is an instance of the state machine for each transport
address pair, Binding Requests and responses need to be matched to
the specific state machine for which they apply. This is done by
computing the matching transport address pair for each Binding
Request. This is done by examining the USERNAME of the incoming
Binding Request. The USERNAME directly contains the transport
address pair ID. Requests that are sent by an agent as part of the
processing described here encode the transport address pair in the
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
USERNAME. Binding Responses are matched to their requests using the
STUN transaction ID, and then mapped to the transport address pair
from that.
Every Ta seconds, the agent starts a new connectivity check for a
transport address pair. The check is started for the first transport
address pair in the transport address pair check ordered list (which
will be part of the active candidate) that is in the Waiting state.
The state machine for this transport address pair is moved to the
Testing state, and the agent sends a connectivity check using a STUN
Binding Request, as outlined in Section 7.7. Once a STUN
connectivity check begins, the processing of the check follows the
rules for STUN. Specifically, retransmits of STUN requests are done
as specified in [13], and furthermore, if a transaction fails and
needs to be retried, that retry can happen rapidly, as described
below. It doesn't "count" against the rate limit of 1/Ta checks per
second. In addition, the keepalives that are generated for a valid
pair do not count against the rate limit either. The rate limit
applies strictly to the start of connectivity checks for a transport
address pair that has been newly signaled through an offer/answer
exchange.
In addition, if, while in the Waiting state, an agent receives a
Binding Request matching that transport address pair, and this
Binding Request generates a successful response, the transport
address pair moves into the Send-Valid state, and the agent sends a
connectivity check of its own using a STUN Binding Request, as
outlined in Section 7.7. If the Binding Request didn't generate a
success response, there is no change in state or generation of a
Binding Request.
If, while in the Testing state, the agent receives a successful
response to its STUN request, the transport address pair moves into
the Recv-Valid state. In this state, the agent knows that packets
can flow in both directions. However, its peer agent doesn't yet
know that; all it knows is that it has been able to receive a packet.
Thus, in this state, the agent awaits receipt of the Binding Request
sent by its peer, as the response to that request is what informs its
peer that packets can flow in both directions.
If, while in the Testing state, the agent receives a Binding Request
matching that transport address pair, and this Binding Request
generates a successful response, the transport address pair moves
into the Send-Valid state. In addition, the agent retransmits a
Binding Request for the transaction in progress. This helps speed up
bidirectional connectivity verification when one agent is behind a
symmetric NAT. If the Binding Request didn't generate a success
response, there is no change in state or generation of a Binding
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Request.
If, while in the Send-Valid state, the agent receives a successful
response to its STUN request, the transport address pair moves to the
Valid state. In this state, the agent knows that packets can flow in
each direction. It also knows that its peer has sent it the STUN
Request whose response will demonstrate to the peer that packets can
flow in each direction.
If, while in the Recv-Valid state, the agent receives a STUN Binding
Request from its peer that results in a successful response, the
transport address pair moves into the Valid state. Receipt of a
request whose response was not a successful one does not result in a
change in state.
In any state, if the STUN transaction results in an error, the state
machine moves into the invalid state. A STUN transaction produces an
"error" based on the processing in Section 7.7, which indicates which
STUN response codes constitute an error as far as ICE processing is
concerned.
If a transport address pair is in the Recv-Valid or Valid state, an
agent MUST generate a new STUN Binding Request transaction every Tr
seconds. This transaction ensures that NAT bindings for the
transport address pair remain open while the candidate is under
consideration. The transaction is performed as outlined in
Section 7.7. These transactions can also be used to keep the NAT
bindings alive when the candidate is promoted to active, as described
in Section 7.12. Tr SHOULD be configurable, and SHOULD default to 15
seconds. If the transaction results in an error, the state machine
moves to the invalid state. This happens in cases where the NAT
bindings expire (e.g., due to binding timeouts or NAT failures).
The candidate pair itself has a state, which is derived from the
states of its transport address pairs. If at least one of the
transport address pairs in a candidate pair is in the invalid state,
the state of the candidate pair is considered to be invalid. If the
candidate pair enters this state, an agent SHOULD move the state
machines for all of the other transport address pairs in this
candidate pair into the invalid state as well. This will ensure that
connectivity checks never start for those transport address pairs.
Furthermore, if checks are already in progress for one of those
transport address pairs, the agent SHOULD cease them.
If all of the transport address pairs making up the candidate pair
are Valid, the candidate pair is considered valid. If all of the
transport address pairs making up the candidate pair are either Valid
or Recv-Valid, and at least one is Recv-Valid, the candidate pair is
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
considered to be Recv-Valid. If all of the transport address pairs
making up the candidate pair are either Valid or Send-Valid, and at
least one is Send-Valid, the candidate pair is considered to be Send-
Valid. If all of the transport address pairs in a candidate pair are
in the Waiting state, the candidate pair is in the waiting state. If
all of the transport address pairs in the candidate pair are either
in the Waiting or Testing states, and at least one is in the Testing
state, the state of the candidate pair is Testing. Otherwise, the
state of the candidate pair is considered Indeterminate.
A candidate itself also has a state. If a candidate is present in at
least one valid candidate pair, that candidate is said to be valid.
If all of the candidate pairs containing that candidate are invalid,
the candidate itself is invalid. Otherwise, the candidate's state is
Indeterminate.
7.7 Sending a Binding Request for Connectivity Checks
An agent performs a connectivity check on a transport address pair by
sending a STUN Binding Request from its native transport address, and
sending it to the remote transport address. The meaning of "sending
from its native transport address" depends on the type of transport
protocol and the type of transport address (local, reflexive, or
relayed). This specification defines the meaning for UDP.
Specifications defining other transport protocols must define what
this means for them.
For UDP-based local transport addresses, sending from the local
transport address has the meaning one would expect - the request is
sent such that the source IP address and port equal that of the local
transport address. For reflexive ransport addresses, it is sent by
sending from the associated local transport address used to derive
that reflesive address. For relayed transport addresses, it is sent
by using STUN mechanisms to send the request through the STUN relay
(using the Send request). Sending the request through the STUN relay
server neccesarily requires that the request be sent from the client,
using the local transport address used to derive the relayed
transport address.
The Binding Request sent by the agent MUST contain the USERNAME
attribute. This attribute MUST be set to the transport address pair
ID of the corresponding transport address pair as seen by its peer.
Thus, for the first transport address pair in Figure 2, if the agent
on the left sends the STUN Binding Request, the USERNAME will have
the value R:1:L:1. If the agent on the right sends the STUN Binding
Request, the USERNAME will have the value L:1:R:1. To be clear, the
USERNAME that is used is NOT the one seen locally, but rather the one
as seen by its peer. The request SHOULD contain the MESSAGE-
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
INTEGRITY attribute, computed according to [13]. The key used as
input to the HMAC is the password provided by the peer for this
remote transport address. This password will be identical for all
remote transport addresses for the same media stream.
The STUN transaction will generate either a timeout, or a response.
If the response is a 420, 500, or 401, the agent should try again as
described in [13] (as mentioned above, it need not wait Ta seconds to
try again). Either initially, or after such a retry, the STUN
transaction might produce a non-recoverable failure response (error
codes 400, 430, 431, or 600) or a failure result inapplicable to this
usage of STUN and thus unrecoverable (432, 433). If this happens, an
error event is generated into the state machine, and the transport
address pair enters the invalid state.
If the STUN transaction times out, the client SHOULD NOT retry. The
only reason a retry might succeed is if there was severe packet loss
during the duration of the check, or the answer was significantly
delayed, also due to packet loss. However, STUN Binding Request
transactions run for 9.5 seconds, which is well beyond the typical
tolerance for a session establishment. The retries come with a
penalty of additional traffic, which can be used to launch DoS
attacks Section 13.4.2. The only reason to not follow the SHOULD NOT
is if the agent has adjusted the STUN transaction timers to be more
aggressive.
If the Binding Response is a 200, the agent SHOULD check for the
MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute and verify it, as discussed in [13].
Indeed, this check SHOULD be done for all responses. This will
result in the response being discarded (eventually leading to a
timeout), if the integrity check fails.
7.8 Receiving a Binding Request for Connectivity Checks
As a result of providing a list of candidates in its offer or answer,
an agent will receive STUN Binding Request messages. An agent MUST
be prepared to receive STUN Binding Requests on each local transport
address from the moment it sends an offer or answer that contains a
candidate with that local transport address. Similarly, it MUST be
prepared to receive STUN Binding Requests on a local transport
address the moment it sends an offer or answer that contains a
reflexive or relayed candidate derived from a local candidate with
that local transport address. It can cease listening for STUN
messages on that local transport address after sending an updated
offer or answer which does not include any candidates with transport
addresses that are equal to or derived from that local transport
address.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
As discussed in [13], since the username and password for STUN
requests are exchanged through another mechanism - here, ICE - the
Shared Secret Request mechanism is not needed and need not be
implemented by agents that provide the connectivity check usage.
One of the candidates may be in use as the active candidate, or may
become promoted to the active candidate in the next offer/answer
exchange as a consequence of a successful validation. In either
case, both media and STUN packets will be sent to the transport
addresses comprising that candidate, causing both to receive on their
associated local transport addresses. The agent MUST be able to
disambiguate them. This is done trivially by looking for the STUN
magic cookie as the value of the second 32-bit word in the packet.
If present, it identifies a STUN packet.
Processing of the Binding Request proceeds in two steps. The first
is generation of the response, and the second ICE-specific
processing. Generation of the response follows the general
procedures of [13]. The USERNAME is considered valid if one of the
candidate IDs sent in an offer or answer is a prefix of the USERNAME
(this will always be the case, even for peer reflexive candidates).
The password associated with that candidate ID is used to verify the
MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute, if one was present in the request. If
the USERNAME was not valid, the agent generates a 430. Otherwise,
the success response will include the MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute, which
is used for learning new candidates, as described in Section 7.10.
The MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute is populated with the source IP address
and port of the Binding Request. For Binding Requests received over
relayed transport addresses, this MUST be the source IP address and
port of the Binding Request when it arrived at the relay, prior to
forwarding towards the agent. That source transport address will be
present in the REMOTE-ADDRESS attribute of a STUN Data Indication
message, if the Binding Request was delivered through a Data
Indication. If the Binding Request was not encapsulated in a Data
Indication, that source address is equal to the current active
destination for the STUN relay session.
The ICE processing involves changes to the state machine for a
transport address pair. This processing cannot be done until the
initial offer/answer exchange has completed. As a consequence, if
the oferrer received a Binding Request that generated a success
response, but had not yet received the answer to its offer, it waits
for the answer, and when it arrives, then performs the ICE
processing.
The agent takes the entire contents of the USERNAME, and compares
them against the transport address pair identifiers as seen by that
agent for each transport address pair. If there is no match, nothing
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
is done - this should never happen for compliant implementations. If
there is a match, the resulting transport address pair is called the
matching transport address pair. The state machine for the matching
transport address pair is then updated based on the receipt of a STUN
Binding Request, and the resulting actions described in Section 7.6
are undertaken.
An agent will continue to receive periodic STUN connectivity checks
on a local transport address as long as it had listed that transport
address, or one derived from it, in an a=candidate attribute in its
most recent offer or answer, the state machine for that transport
address is in the Recv-Valid or Valid states, and the transport
address is for UDP. Whether STUN keepalives are used for other
transport protocols is defined by the specifications for that
transport protocol. The agent processes any such transactions
according to this section. It is possible that a transport address
pair that was previously valid may become invalidated as a result of
a subsequent failed STUN transaction.
7.9 Promoting a Candidate to Active
As a consequence of the connectivity checks, each agent will change
the states for each transport address pair, and consequently, for the
candidate pairs. When a candidate pair becomes valid, and the agent
is in the role of offerer for that candidate pair, the agent follows
the logic in this section. The rules only apply to the offerer of a
candidate pair in order to eliminate the possibility of both agents
simultaneously offering an update to promote a candidate to active.
If this candidate pair is the first one in the candidate pair
priority ordered list, the agent SHOULD send an updated offer as
described in Section 7.11.1. If this candidate pair is not the first
on that list, but it is the first on the candidate pair check ordered
list, it means that this candidate pair is the active one, and its
connectivity has been verified. This is good news; the currently
active candidate is working. Media can now flow as described in
Section 7.13 (media will never flow prior to validation). However,
no updated offer is sent at this time.
If this candidate pair is not the first on the candidate pair
priority ordered list or the candidate pair check ordered list, and
the wait-state timer has not yet been set, the agent sets this timer
to Tws seconds. Tws SHOULD be configurable, and SHOULD have a
default of 100ms. This timer allows for a higher priority
connectivity check to complete, in the event its STUN Binding Request
was lost or delayed in the network. If, prior to the wait-state
timer firing, another connectivity check completes and a candidate
pair is validated, there is no need to reset or cancel the timer.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Once the timer fires, the agent SHOULD issue an updated offer as
described in Section 7.11.1.
In addition, in order to speed up ICE processing, once the agent has
determined the candidate that is to be promoted, it will send and
receive media using that candidate in expectation of an updated
offer. This is discussed in Section 7.13.
7.10 Learning New Candidates from Connectivity Checks
ICE makes use of reflexive addresses, which are addresses that inform
an agent of its transport address as seen by another host. An
initial offer or answer generated by an agent includes server
reflexive addresses, which are learned from a configured or
discovered STUN server in the network. However, the connectivity
checks themselves can inform an agent of reflexive addresses, and in
particular, ones that are reflexive towards its peer. These are
called peer reflexive candidates. A new peer reflexive candidate is
typically observed when two agents are separated by a NAT with the
address-dependent or address and port dependent mapping properties
[37]. When the agent behind such a NAT sends a Binding Request to
the other agent (assuming it is reachable), the NAT will create a new
mapping for this Binding Request. Because STUN and the media packets
are sent on the same port, regardless of the filtering properties of
the NAT (whether endpoint independent, address dependent, or address
and port dependent), this reflexive address can be used by the peer
for sending STUN and media packets back towards the agent.
To obtain and use these peer reflexive transport addresses, ICE
agents perform additional processing on the receipt of STUN Binding
Requests and responses, beyond the logic described in Section 7.7 and
Section 7.8. This logic is described below.
7.10.1 On Receipt of a Binding Request
When a STUN Binding Request is received which generates a success
response, that Binding Request would have been associated with a
matching transport address pair and corresponding candidate pair.
The source IP and port of this Binding Request are compared to the IP
address and port of the remote transport address in the matching
transport address pair. Note that, in this case, we are comparing
actual IP addresses and ports - not tids. In addition, if the
Binding Request arrived through a relayed transport address, the
source IP and port of this binding request used for the comparison
are those in the Binding Request when it arrived at the relay, prior
to forwarding towards the agent. That source transport address will
be present in the REMOTE-ADDRESS attribute of a STUN Data Indication
message, if the Binding Request were delivered through a Data
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Indication. If the Binding Request was not encapsulated in a Data
Indication, that source address is equal to the current active
destination for the STUN relay session.
The comparison of the source IP and port of the Binding Request and
the IP address and port of the remote transport address in the
matching transport address pair may indicate inequality. In that
case, the source IP and port of the Binding Request (and again, for
relayed transport address, this refers to the source IP address and
port of the packet when it arrived at the relay) are compared to the
IP address and ports across the transport address pairs in *all*
remote candidates. If there is still no match, it means that the
source IP and port might represent another valid remote transport
address - a peer derived one.
To use it, that address needs to be associated with a candidate
(called a peer-derived candidate). In this case, however, the
candidate isn't signaled through an offer/answer exchange; it is
constructed dynamically from information in the STUN request. Like
all other candidates, the peer-derived candidate has a candidate ID.
The candidate ID is derived from the candidate IDs of the matching
candidate pair. In particular, the candidate ID is constructed by
concatenating the remote candidate ID with the native candidate ID
(without the colon). The password for the new candidate equals that
of the remote candidate ID in the matching candidate pair.
On receipt of a STUN Binding Request whose source IP and port don't
match the transport address in any remote candidate, the agent
constructs the candidate ID that represents the peer reflexive
candidate, and checks to see if that candidate exists. It may
already exist if it had been constructed as a consequence of a
previous application of this logic on receipt of a Binding Request
for a different transport address pair of the same candidate pair.
If there is not yet a peer reflexive candidate with that candidate
ID, the agent creates it, and assigns it the newly computed candidate
ID. The priority of the peer-derived candidate MUST be set to the
priority of its generating candidate - the remote candidate in the
matching transport address pair. Note that, at this time, the peer
derived candidate has no transport addresses in it.
Newly created or not, the agent extracts the component ID from the
matching transport address pair, and sees if a transport address with
that same component ID exists in the peer reflexive candidate. If
not (and it shouldn't), the agent adds a transport address to the
peer reflexive candidate. This transport address is equal to the
source IP address and port from the incoming STUN Binding Request
(and in the case of a relayed transport address, the one seen by the
relay). It is assigned the component ID equal to the component ID in
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
the matching transport address pair. This transport address will
have a tid, equal to the concatenation of the candidate ID for this
new candidate, and the component ID, separated by a colon.
The peer reflexive candidate becomes usable once the number of
transport addresses in it equals the transport address pair count of
the candidate pair from which it is derived. Initially, the peer
reflexive candidate will start with a single transport address. More
are added as the connectivity checks for the original candidate pair
take place. Once the peer reflexive candidate becomes usable, it has
to be paired up with native candidates. However, unlike the
procedures of Section 7.5, which pair up each remote candidate with
each native candidate, this peer reflexive candidate is only paired
up with the native candidate from the candidate pair from which it
was derived. This creates a new candidate pair, and a set of new
transport address pairs.
Recall that, for each candidate pair, one agent plays the role of
offerer, and the other of answerer. For a peer-reflexive candidate,
the role is identical to that of its generating candidate.
Figure 5 provides a pictorial representation of the peer reflexive
candidate (the one with id=RL) and its pairing with the native
candidate with id L. The candidate with ID R is referred to as the
generating candidate. The peer reflexive candidate is effectively an
alternate for that generating candidate, but is only paired with a
specific native candidate. Note that, for a particular generating
candidate, there can be many peer derived candidates, up to one for
each native candidate.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
............. .............
. tid=L:1 . . tid=R:1 .
component. -- . id=L:1:R:1 . -- .component
id=1 . | A|-------------------------| C| . id=1
. -- -------+ . -- .
. . | . . Generating
. . | . . Candidate
. tid=L:2 . | . tid=R:2 .
component. -- . | id=L:2:R:2 . -- .component
id=2 . | B|-------C-----------------| D| . id=2
. -- -----+ | . -- .
.............| | .............
Native | | Remote
Candidate | | Candidate
id=L | | id=R
| |
| | .............
| | . tid=RL:1 .
| | id=L:1:RL:1 . -- .component
| +-----------------| C| . id=1
| . -- .
| . . Peer Derived
| . . Candidate
| . tid=RL:2 .
| id=L:2:RL:2 . -- .component
+-------------------| D| . id=2
. -- .
.............
Remote
Candidate
id=RL
Figure 5
The new transport address pairs have a state machine associated with
them. The state that is entered, and actions to take as a
consequence, are specific to the transport protocol. For UDP, the
procedures are defined here. Extensions that define processing for
other transport protocols SHOULD describe the behavior.
For UDP, the state machine enters the Send-Valid state. Effectively,
the Binding Request just received "counts" as a validation in this
direction, even though it was formally done for a different candidate
pair. In addition, the agent SHOULD generate a Binding Request for
each transport address in this new candidate pair, as described in
Section 7.7. The transport address pairs are inserted into the
ordered list of pairs based on the ordering described in Section 7.5
and processing follows the logic described in Section 7.6.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
7.10.2 On Receipt of a Binding Response
The procedures on receipt of a Binding Response are nearly identical
to those for receipt of a Binding Request as described above.
When a successful STUN Binding Response is received, it will be
associated with a matching transport address pair and corresponding
candidate pair. This matching is done based on comparison of
candidate IDs. The value of the MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute of the
Binding Response are compared to the IP address and port of the
native transport address in the matching transport address pair.
Note that, in this case, we are comparing actual IP addresses and
ports - not tids. These may not match if there was a NAT between the
two agents. If they do not match, the value of the MAPPED-ADDRESS
attribute of the Binding Response are compared to the IP address and
ports across the transport address pairs in *all* native candidates.
If there is still no match, it means that the MAPPED-ADDRESS might
represent another valid native transport address.
To use it, that address needs to be associated with a candidate. In
this case, however, the candidate isn't signaled through an offer/
answer exchange; it is constructed dynamically from information in
the STUN response. Such a candidate is called a peer reflexive
candidate. Like all other candidates, the peer reflexive candidate
has a candidate ID. The candidate ID is derived from the candidate
IDs of the matching candidate pair. In particular, the candidate ID
is constructed by concatenating the native candidate ID with the
remote candidate ID (without the colon). The password for the new
candidate equals that of the native candidate ID in the matching
candidate pair.
On receipt of a STUN Binding Response whose MAPPED-ADDRESS didn't
match the transport address in any native candidate, the agent
constructs the candidate ID that represents the peer reflexive
candidate, and checks to see if that candidate exists. It may
already exist if it had been constructed as a consequence of a
previous application of this logic on receipt of a Binding Response
for a different transport address pair of the same candidate pair.
If there is not yet a peer derived candidate with that candidate ID,
the agent creates it, and assigns it the newly computed candidate ID.
The priority of the new candidate MUST be set to the priority of the
generating candidate - the native candidate in the matching transport
address pair. Note that, at this time, the peer derived candidate
has no transport addresses in it.
Newly created or not, the agent extracts the component ID from the
matching transport address pair, and sees if a transport address with
that same component ID exists in the peer reflexive candidate. If
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
not (and it shouldn't), the agent adds a transport address to the
peer reflexive candidate. This transport address is equal to the
MAPPED-ADDRESS from the STUN Binding Response. It is assigned the
component ID equal to the component ID in the matching transport
address pair. This transport address will have a tid, equal to the
concatenation of the candidate ID for this new candidate, and the
component ID, separated by a colon.
The peer-derived candidate becomes usable once the number of
transport addresses in it equals the transport address pair count of
candidate pair from which it is derived. Initially, the peer-derived
candidate will start with a single transport address. More are added
as the connectivity checks for the original candidate pair take
place. Once the peer-derived candidate becomes usable, it has to be
paired up with remote candidates. However, unlike the procedures of
Section 7.5, which pair up each remote candidate with each native
candidate, the peer-derived candidate is only paired up with the
remote candidate from the matching candidate pair. This creates a
new candidate pair, and a set of new transport address pairs.
Recall that, for each candidate pair, one agent plays the role of
offerer, and the other of answerer. For a peer-reflexive candidate,
the role is identical to that of its generating candidate.
The new transport address pairs have a state machine associated with
them. The state that is entered, and actions to take as a
consequence, are specific to the transport protocol. For UDP, the
procedures are defined here. Extensions that define processing for
other transport protocols SHOULD describe the behavior.
For UDP, the state machine enters the Recv-Valid state. Effectively,
the Binding Response just received "counts" as a validation in this
direction, even though it was formally done for a different candidate
pair. The transport address pairs are inserted into the ordered list
of pairs based on the ordering described in Section 7.5, and
processing follows the logic described in Section 7.6.
7.11 Subsequent Offer/Answer Exchanges
An agent MAY issue an updated offer at any time. This updated offer
may be sent for reasons having nothing to do with ICE processing (for
example, the addition of a video stream in a multimedia session), or
it may be due to a change in ICE-related parameters. For example, if
an agent acquires a new candidate after the initial offer/answer
exchange, it may seek to add it.
However, agents SHOULD follow the logic described in Section 7.9 to
determine when to send an updated offer as a consequence of promoting
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
a candidate to active.
If there are any aspects of this processing that are specific to the
transport protocol, those SHOULD be called out in ICE extensions that
define operation with other transport protocols. There are no
additional considerations for UDP.
7.11.1 Sending of a Subsequent Offer
The offer MAY contain a new active candidate in the m/c line. This
candidate SHOULD be the native candidate from the highest candidate
pair in the candidate pair priority ordered list whose state is
Valid. If there are no candidate pairs in this state, the highest
one whose state is Send-Valid or Recv-Valid SHOULD be used. If there
are no candidate pairs in these states, the candidate pair that is
most likely to work with this peer, as described in Section 7.2,
SHOULD be used. The candidate is encoded into the m/c line in an
updated offer as described in Section 7.3.
If the candidate pair whose native candidate was encoded into the
m/c-line was Valid, Send-Valid or Recv-Valid, the agent MUST include
an a=remote-candidate attribute into the offer. This attribute MUST
contain the candidate ID of the remote candidate in the candidate
pair. It is used by the recipient of the offer in selecting its
candidate for the answer.
The meaning of a=candidate attributes within a subsequent offer have
the same meaning as they do in an initial offer. They are a request
for the peer to attempt (or continue to attempt if the candidate was
provided previously) a connectivity check using STUN from each of its
own candidates. When an updated offer is sent, there are several
dispositions regarding the candidates:
retained: A candidate is retained if the candidate ID for the
candidate is included in the new offer, and matches the candidate
ID for a candidate in the previous offer or answer from the agent.
In this case, all of the information about the candidate - its
qvalue and components, and the IP addresses, ports, and transport
protocols of its components, MUST be the same as the previous
offer or answer from the agent. If the agent wants to change
them, this is accomplished by changing the candidate ID as well.
That will have the effect of removing the old candidate and adding
a new one with the updated information.
removed: A candidate is removed if its candidate ID appeared in a
previous offer or answer, and that candidate ID is not present in
the new offer.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
added: A candidate is added if its candidate ID appeared in the new
offer, but was not present in a previous offer or answer from that
agent.
The following rules are used to determine the disposition of the each
of the current native candidates in the new offer:
o If a candidate is invalid, and all peer reflexive candidates
generated from it are invalid as well, it SHOULD be removed.
o If the candidate in the m/c-line is valid, all other candidates
SHOULD be removed. This has the effect of stopping connectivity
checks of other candidates. This SHOULD would not be followed if
an agent wanted to keep a candidate ready for usage should, for
some reason, the active candidate later become invalid.
o If the candidate in the m/c-line is valid, and it is not peer
reflexive, that candidate MUST be retained. If the candidate in
the m/c-line is peer reflexive, its generating candidate MUST be
retained, even if it is itself invalid.
o If the candidate in the m/c-line has not been validated, all other
candidates that are not invalid, or candidates for whom their
derived candidates are not invalid, SHOULD be retained.
o Peer reflexive candidates MUST NOT be added; they continue to be
used as long as their generating candidate was retained. Peer
derived candidates are learned exclusively through the STUN
connectivity checks.
A new candidate MAY be added. This can happen when the candidate is
a new one, learned since the previous offer/answer exchange, and it
has a higher priority than the currently active candidate. It can
also occur when an agent wishes to restart checks for a transport
address it had tried previously. Effectively, changing the candidate
ID value in an updated offer will "restart" connectivity checks for
that candidate.
If a candidate is removed, the agent takes the following steps once
the offer is sent:
1. The agent eliminates any candidate pairs whose native candidate
equalled the candidate that was removed. Equality is based on
comparison of candidate IDs.
2. The agent eliminates any candidate pairs that had a native
candidate that is a peer reflexive candidate generated from the
candidate that was removed.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
3. The candidate pairs that are eliminated are removed from the
candidate pair priority ordered list and candidate pair check
ordered list. As a consequence of this, if connectivity checks
had not yet begun for the candidate pair, they won't.
4. If connectivity checks were already in progress for transport
addresses in a candidate pair that was removed, the agent SHOULD
immediately terminate them. No further retransmissions take
place, and no further transactions from that candidate will be
made.
5. If the removed candidate was a relayed candidate, the agent
SHOULD de-allocate its transport addresses from the STUN relay if
it is not using those resources elswhere. If a local candidate
was removed, and all of its derived candidates were also removed
(including any peer reflexive candidates), local operating system
resources for each of the transport addresses in the local
candidate SHOULD be de-allocated, as long as it is not using
those resources elsewhere. The resources may be in use elsewhere
if they were included in an initial offer which generated
multiple answers (as can happen with SIP forking). In such a
case, a subsequent offer which removes the candidate will not
imply its removal with the other branches; each becomes a
separate offer/answer relationship.
Subsequent offers MUST contain the a=ice-pwd attribute. This SHOULD
have the same value as in previous offers. However, an agent MAY
change it if, for some reason, the agent believes that the password
may have been compromised. Since the same password is applied across
all transport addresses in all candidates for all media streams, a
change in the password impacts all of them. An agent MUST be
prepared to receive connectivity checks that use either the new or
old password until Tpw seconds after it receives the answer. Tpw
SHOULD be configurable, and SHOULD default to 2 seconds.
7.11.2 Receiving the Offer and Sending an Answer
To generate the answer, the answerer has to decide which transport
addresses to include in the m/c line, and which to include in
candidate attributes.
The first step in the process is to look for the a=remote-candidate
attribute in the offer. The a=remote-candidate exists to eliminate a
race condition between the updated offer and the response to the STUN
Binding Request that moved a candidate into the Valid state. This
race condition is shown in Figure 6. On receipt of message 5, agent
A can move its transport address pair state machine into the Valid
state. It sends a STUN response to the request (message 6), but this
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
is lost. Agent A proceeds with an updated offer (message 7), which
is received at agent B. As far as agent B is concerned, the transport
address pair is still in the Send-Valid state. It will move into the
Valid state only on receipt of the STUN response in message 10.
Thus, upon receipt of the offer, agent B cannot determine which
candidate to include in its answer. To eliminate this condition, the
identity of the validated candidate is included in the offer itself.
Note, however, that the answerer will not send media until it has
received this STUN response.
Agent A Network Agent B
|(1) Offer | |
|------------------------------------------>|
|(2) Answer | |
|<------------------------------------------|
|(3) STUN Req. | |
|------------------------------------------>|
|(4) STUN Res. | |
|<------------------------------------------|
|(5) STUN Req. | |
|<------------------------------------------|
|(6) STUN Res. | |
|-------------------->| |
| |Lost |
|(7) Offer | |
|------------------------------------------>|
|(8) Answer | |
|<------------------------------------------|
|(9) STUN Req. | |
|<------------------------------------------|
|(10) STUN Res. | |
|------------------------------------------>|
Figure 6
If the a=remote-candidate attribute is present, the agent examines
the transport addresses in the m/c-line of the offer. It compares
these with the transport addresses in the remote candidates of all
candidate pairs. If there is at least one match, the agent compares
the native candidate ID of each matching pair with the value of the
a=remote-candidate attribute. If there is a match, that candidate
pair is selected. For each transport address pair in that candidate
pair, if the state of the transport address pair is Send-Valid, the
agent considers the state to be Valid just for the purpose of
selecting the m/c-line as discussed in the paragraph below. The
actual state MUST remain Send-Valid. This is necessary to prevent
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
against DoS attacks.
Rules for choosing transport addresses for the m/c-line are as
follows. The agent examines the transport addresses in the m/c-line
of the offer. It compares these with the transport addresses in the
remote candidates of candidate pairs whose states are Valid. If
there is a matching candidate pair in that state, the pair with the
highest priority MUST be chosen, and the native candidate from that
pair used as the active candidate. If there were no matching
candidate pairs in the Valid state, the candidate that is most likely
to work with this peer, as described in Section 7.2, SHOULD be used.
Like the offerer, the answerer can decide, for each of its
candidates, whether they are retained or removed. The same rules
defined in Section 7.11.1 for determining their disposition apply to
the answerer. Similarly, if a candidate is removed, the same rules
in Section 7.11.1 regarding removal of canididate pairs and freeing
of resources apply.
Once the answer is sent, the answerer will have the set of native and
remote candidates before this offer/answer exchange, and the set of
native and remote candidates afterwards. A peer derived candidate
continues to be used as long as its generating parent continues to be
used. The agent then pairs up the native and remote candidates which
were added or retained. This leads to a set of current candidate
pairs.
If a candidate pair existed previously, but as a consequence of the
offer/answer exchange, it no longer exists, the agent takes the
following steps:
1. The candidate pair is removed from the candidate pair priority
ordered list and candidate pair check ordered list. As a
consequence of this, if connectivity checks had not yet begun for
the candidate pair, they won't.
2. If connectivity checks were already in progress for that
candidate pair, the agent SHOULD immediately terminate any STUN
transactions in progress from that candidate. No further
retransmissions take place, and no further transactions from that
candidate will be made.
3. If the agent receives a STUN Binding Request for that candidate
pair, the agent SHOULD generate a 430 response.
If a candidate pair existed previously, and continues to exist, no
changes are made; any STUN transactions in progress for that
candidate pair continue, and it remains on the candidate pair
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
priority ordered list and candidate pair check ordered list.
If a candidate pair is new (because either its native candidate is
new, or its remote candidate is new, or both), the agent takes the
role of answerer for this candidate pair. The new candidate pair is
inserted into the candidate pair priority ordered list and candidate
pair check ordered list. STUN connectivity checks will start for
them based on the logic described in Section 7.6.
7.11.3 Receiving the Answer
Once the answer is received, the answerer will have the set of native
and remote candidates before this offer/answer exchange, and the set
of native and remote candidates afterwards. It then follows the same
logic described in Section 7.11.2, pairing up the candidate pairs,
removing ones that are no longer in use, and beginning of processing
for ones that are new.
7.12 Binding Keepalives
Once a candidate is promoted to active, and media begins flowing, it
is still necessary to keep the bindings alive at intermediate NATs
for the duration of the session. Normally, the media stream packets
themselves (e.g., RTP) meet this objective. However, several cases
merit further discussion. Firstly, in some RTP usages, such as SIP,
the media streams can be "put on hold". This is accomplished by
using the SDP "sendonly" or "inactive" attributes, as defined in RFC
3264 [4]. RFC 3264 directs implementations to cease transmission of
media in these cases. However, doing so may cause NAT bindings to
timeout, and media won't be able to come off hold.
Secondly, some RTP payload formats, such as the payload format for
text conversation [36], may send packets so infrequently that the
interval exceeds the NAT binding timeouts.
Thirdly, if silence suppression is in use, long periods of silence
may cause media transmission to cease sufficiently long for NAT
bindings to time out.
To prevent these problems, ICE implementations MUST continue to list
their active candidate in a=candidate lines for UDP-based media
streams. As a consequence of this, STUN packets will be transmitted
periodically independently of the transmission (or lack thereof) of
media packets. This provides a media independent, RTP independent,
and codec independent solution for keeping the NAT bindings alive.
If an ICE implementation is communciating with one that does not
support ICE, keepalives MUST still be sent. Indeed, these keepalives
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
are essential even if neither endpoint implements ICE. As such, this
specification defines keepalive behavior generally, for endpoints
that support ICE, and those that do not.
All endpoints MUST send keepalives for each media session. These
keepalives MUST be sent regardless of whether the media stream is
currently inactive, sendonly, recvonly or sendrecv. The keepalive
SHOULD be sent using a format which is supported by its peer. ICE
endpoints allow for STUN-based keepalives for UDP streams, and as
such, STUN keepalives MUST be used when an agent is communicating
with a peer that supports ICE. An agent can determine that its peer
supports ICE by the presence of the a=candidate attributes for each
media session. If the peer does not support ICE, the choice of a
packet format for keepalives is a matter of local implementation. A
format which allows packets to easily be sent in the absence of
actual media content is RECOMMENDED. Examples of formats which
readily meet this goal are RTP No-Op [31] and RTP comfort noise [26].
STUN-based keepalives will be sent periodically every Tr seconds as a
consequence of the rules in in Section 7.7. If STUN keepalives are
not in use (because the peer does not support ICE), an agent SHOULD
ensure that a media packet is sent every Tr seconds. If one is not
sent as a consequence of normal media communications, a keepalive
packet using one of the formats discussed above SHOULD be sent.
7.13 Sending Media
When an agent receives an offer and sends an answer, or when it
receives an answer to an offer it sent, it begins connectivity
checks. These checks will include validation of the active candidate
pair, if there was one. An agent SHOULD NOT send media on the active
candidate pair until that candidate pair has reached the Valid or
Recv-Valid state. This is to help prevent a denial-of-service
attack, described in Section 13. Once the active candidate pair
reaches the Valid or Recv-Valid state, an agent MAY start sending
media to that candidate pair.
However, offer/answer exchanges are used with protocols, like SIP,
which require media to be sent "early", from the answerer to the
offer, prior to completion of the initial offer/answer exchange. It
is highly desirable (and sometimes necessary) for this early media to
use the candidate pair ultimately selected by ICE connectivity
checks. For this reason, ICE provides an early media mechanism that
allows for a candidate pair to be used in one direction prior to its
promotion to active in a subsequent offer/answer exchange. Note
that, with ICE, early media pertains to media sent to a candidate
pair until its promotion to active in a subsequent offer/answer
exchange. This is a broader definition than is used in [29], which
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
defines early media as media sent prior to acceptance of a call.
As a consequence of the connectivity checks, an agent will change the
states for each transport address pair, and consequently, for the
candidate pairs. When a candidate pair becomes Valid or Recv-Valid,
and the candidate pair is not equal to the active candidate pair, and
the agent is in the role of answerer for that candidate pair, the
agent checks the position of that pair in the candidate pair priority
ordered list. If it is the first, the agent selects this candidate
pair for early media. If this candidate pair is not the first on the
candidate pair priority ordered list, but is higher priority than the
active candidate pair, and the early media wait-state timer has not
yet been set, the agent sets this timer to Tws seconds. Tws SHOULD
be configurable, and SHOULD have a default of 100ms. This timer
allows for a higher priority connectivity check to complete, in the
event its STUN Binding Request or Response was lost or delayed in the
network. If, prior to the wait-state timer firing, another
connectivity check completes and a candidate pair enters the Valid or
Recv-Valid states, there is no need to reset or cancel the timer.
Once the timer fires, the agent SHOULD select the highest priority
candidate pair in the Valid or Recv-Valid state for which the agent
has the role of answerer, and use that candidate pair for early
media.
ICE processing will ensure that, under almost all circumstances, the
candidate pair selected by the answerer for early media will also be
the one selected by the offerer for eventual promotion to active.
The early media state implies that the answerer knows that this
candidate pair is to be used, but the offerer doesn't know yet that
it will eventually be validated. It is for this reason that the
candidate pair can be used for early media.
If a candidate pair is selected for early media, an agent MAY send
media on that candidate pair, even if it is not the same as the
active candidate pair. However, to deal with cases in which the
offerer and answerer do not agree on the eventual selection of this
candidate for promotion to active (a rare but possible case), the
agent MUST discontinue using the candidate pair for sending media Tlo
seconds after the answer has been reliably delivered. An answer is
considered reliably delivered when the agent receives a confirmation
that is has been delivered. In the case of an answer delivered in a
200 OK to an offer in an INVITE (in the SIP case), the answer is
considered reliably delivered upon receipt of the ACK. Tlo SHOULD be
configurable and SHOULD have a default of 5 seconds. This time
represents the amount of time it should take the offerer to perform
its connectivity checks, arrive at the same conclusion about the
viability of the early candidate, and then generate an updated offer
promoting it to active. If, after Tlo seconds, no updated offer
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
arrives, the answerer MUST cease using the early candidate. Media
MAY be sent to the active candidate pair if it is in the Valid or
Recv-Valid state.
If an updated offer does arrive prior to the expiration of the timer,
the agent MUST execute the procedures in Section 7.11.2, which will
result in the selection of a candidate for the m/c-line in the
answer. At that point, the procedures of this section SHOULD be
restarted by the answerer. This implies that the active candidate
pair, if Valid or Recv-Valid, will be used. If a higher priority
candidate pair subsequently enters the Valid or Recv-Valid state, it
may end up being used as an early candidate.
To use a candidate pair, whether it is early or active, media is sent
to the IP addresses and ports of the components in the remote
candidate, and sends that media from the IP addresses and ports of
the components in the native candidate. Transport addresses are
paired up based on component ID. For example, if a remote candidate
has two components R1 and R2, and the native candidate has two
components L1 and L2, media packets are sent from L1 to R1 and from
L2 to R2. This provides a property known as symmetry. This
symmetric behavior MUST be followed by an agent even if its peer in
the session doesn't support ICE.
The definition of sending media "from" a particular transport address
depends on the type of transport address. In the case of a server
reflexive transport address, this means that the RTP packets are sent
from the local transport address used to obtain the STUN address. In
the case of a relayed transport address, this means that media
packets are sent through the relay server (for STUN relays, this
would be using the Send request). For local transport addresses,
media is sent from that local transport address. For peer reflexive
transport addresses, media is sent from the local transport address
used to obtain the reflexive address.
ICE has interactions with jitter buffer adaptation mechanisms. An
RTP stream can begin using one candidate, and switch to another one.
The newer candidate may result in RTP packets taking a different path
through the network - one with different delay characteristics. To
signal to the jitter buffers that this change has happened, it is
RECOMMENDED that, when an agent switches transmission of media from
one candidate pair to another, it sets the RTP marker bit.
Furthermore, it is RECOMMENDED that, upon receipt of an RTP packet
with the marker bit set, or upon receipt of a packet with a different
source IP address, that the agent re-adjust its jitter buffers.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
8. Guidelines for Usage with SIP
SIP [2] makes use of the offer/answer model, and is one of the
primary targets for usage of ICE. SIP allows for offer/answer
exchanges to occur in many different combinations of messages,
including INVITE/200 OK and 200 OK/ACK. When support for reliable
provisional responses (RFC 3262 [11]) and UPDATE (RFC 3311 [27]) are
added, additional combinations of messages that can be used for
offer/answer exchanges are added. As such, this section provides
some guidance on good ways to make use of SIP with ICE.
ICE requires a series of STUN-based connectivity checks to take place
between endpoints. These checks start from the answerer on
generation of its answer, and start from the offerer when it receives
the answer. These checks can take time to complete, and as such, the
selection of messages to use with offers and answers can effect
perceived user latency. Two latency of figures are of particular
interest. These are the post-pickup delay and the post-dial delay.
The post-pickup delay refers to the time between when a user "answers
the phone" and when any speech they utter can be delivered to the
caller. The post-dial delay refers to the time between when a user
enters the destination address for the user, and ringback begins as a
consequence of having succesfully started ringing the phone of the
called party.
To reduce post-dial delays, it is RECOMMENDED that the caller begin
gathering candidates prior to actually sending its initial INVITE.
This can be started upon user interface cues that a call is pending,
such as activity on a keypad or the phone going offhook.
To reduce post-pickup delays, ICE allows for media to be sent from
the answerer to the offerer on a candidate pair, prior to its
promotion to active. However, this requires the answerer to have
generated its answer and sent it. In most cases, it will require
this answer to be received by the offerer. The reason is that
connectivity checks or RTP packets from the answerer to the offerer
will not be forwarded by NATs towards the offerer until the offerer
has established a permission in the NAT by generating a packet
towards the answerer.
For this reason, if an offer is received in an INVITE request, the
UAS SHOULD immediately gather its candidates and then generate an
answer in a provisional response. When reliable provisional
responses are not used, the SDP in the provisional response is not
formally the answer; the value in the 200 OK is the actual answer.
However, RFC 3261 allows for SDP to appear in an unreliable
provisional response, in which case its value has to be identical to
the value placed in the 200 OK. Thus, we refer to the SDP in the
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
provisional response, even when unreliable, as the answer. To deal
with possible losses of the provisional response, it SHOULD be
retransmitted until some indication of receipt. This indication can
either be through PRACK [11], or through the receipt of a STUN
Binding Request with a correct username and password. Furthermore,
once the answer has been sent, the agent SHOULD begin its
connectivity checks. Once a candidate reaches the Valid or Recv-
Valid state, the UAS has a known-valid path for media packets towards
the UAC. This point is called the connected point in ICE.
Once the UAS reaches the connected point, media can be sent from the
UAS towards the UAC without any additional delays. However, between
the receipt of the INVITE and the connected point, any media that
needs to be sent towards the caller (such as SIP early media [29]
cannot be transmitted. For this reason, implementations MAY choose
to delay alerting the called party until the connected point is
reached. In the case of a PSTN gateway, this would mean that the
setup message into the PSTN is delayed until the connected point.
Doing this increases the post-dial delay, but has the effect of
eliminating 'ghost rings'. Ghost rings are cases where the called
party hears the phone ring, picks up, but hears nothing and cannot be
heard. This technique works without requiring support for, or usage
of, preconditions [7], since its a localized decision. It also has
the benefit of guaranteeing that not a single packet of early media
will get clipped. If an agent chooses to delay local alerting in
this way, it SHOULD generate a 180 response once alerting begins.
A slight variation of this approach is to wait for a connectivity
check to succeed to a higher priority candidate pair than the active
one. This allows for the agent to only ever send media, early or
otherwise, to a single candidate, which will work better with jitter
buffers, at the expense of even greater post-dial delays.
Note that, prior to the promotion of a candidate pair to active, the
offerer will not be able to send using the candidate pair. When used
with SIP, if the initial offer is sent in the INVITE, and the answer
is sent in both the provisional and final 200 OK response, the
offerer will not be able to send media until it sends a re-INVITE and
receives the 200 OK response to that re-INVITE. This can take
several hundred milliseconds. If this latency is an issue (it is
generally not considered an issue for voice systems), reliable
provisional responses [11] MAY be used, in which case an UPDATE [27]
can be used to send an updated offer prior to the call being
answered.
As discussed in Section 13, offer/answer exchanges SHOULD be secured
against eavesdropping and man-in-the-middle attacks. To do that, the
usage of SIPS [2] is RECOMMENDED when used in concert with ICE.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
9. Interactions with Forking
SIP allows INVITE requests carrying offers to fork, which means that
they are delivered to multiple user agents. Each of those user
agents then provides an answer to the offer in the INVITE. The
result is that a single offer generated by the UAC produces multiple
answers.
ICE interacts very well with forking. Indeed, ICE fixes some of the
problems associated with forking. Once the offer/answer exchange has
completed, the UAC will have an answer from each UAS that received
the INVITE. The ICE connectivity checks that ensue will carry
transport address pair IDs that correlate each of those checks (and
thus their corresponding IP addresses and ports) with a specific
remote user agent. As these checks happen before any media is
transmitted, ICE allows a UAC to disambiguate subsequent media
traffic by looking at the source IP address and port, and then
correlate that traffic with a particular remote UA. When SIP is used
without ICE, the incoming media traffic cannot be disambiguated
without an additional offer/answer exchange.
10. Interactions with Preconditions
Because ICE involves multiple addresses and pre-session activities,
its interactions with preconditions merits further discussion.
Quality of Service (QoS) preconditions, which are defined in RFC 3312
[7] and RFC 4032 [8], apply only to the IP addresses and ports listed
in the m/c lines in an offer/answer. If ICE changes the address and
port where media is received, this change is reflected in the m/c
lines of a new offer/answer. As such, it appears like any other re-
INVITE would, and is fully treated in RFC 3312 and 4032, which
applies without regard to the fact that the m/c lines are changing
due to ICE negotiations ocurring "in the background".
However, usage of early candidates with QoS preconditions is NOT
RECOMMENDED, since QoS will only be reserved for the candidate pair
in the m/c-line. An agent SHOULD only send to the active candidate
(once it enters the Valid or Recv-Valid states) if QoS preconditions
are used for a media session.
ICE also has (purposeful) interactions with connectivity
preconditions [30]. Those interactions are described there.
11. Examples
This section provides two examples. One is a very basic example, and
the other is more elaborate. A common configuration and setup is
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
used in both cases.
Two agents, L and R, are using ICE. Both agents have a single IPv4
interface, and are configured with a single STUN server each (indeed,
the same one for each). This STUN server supports both the Binding
Discovery usage and the Relay usage. Agent L is behind a NAT, and
agent R is on the public Internet.
To facilitate understanding, transport addresses are listed in a
mnemonic form. This form is entity-type-seqno, where entity refers
to the entity whose interface the transport address is on, and is one
of "L", "R", "STUN", or "NAT". The type is either "PUB" for
transport addresses that are public, and "PRIV" for transport
addresses that are private. Finally, seq-no is a sequence number
that is different for each transport address of the same type on a
particular entity.
The STUN server has advertised transport address STUN-PUB-1 for both
the binding discovery usage and the relay usage.
In addition, candidate IDs are also listed in mnemonic form. Agent L
uses candidate ID L1 for its local candidate, L2 for its server
reflexive candidate, and L3 for its relayed candidate. Agent R uses
R1 for its local candidate and R2 for its relayed candidate. The
password is LPASS for each candidate from agent L, and RPASS for each
candidate from agent R.
In example SDP messages, $TADDR.IP is used to refer to the value of
the IP address of the transport address with mnemonic name "taddr".
Similarly, $TADDR.PORT is used to refer to the value of the port of
the transport address with mnemonic name "TADDR".
In the call flow itself, STUN messages are annotated with several
attributes. The "S=" attribute indicates the source transport
address of the message. The "D=" attribute indicates the destination
transport address of the message. The "MA=" attribute is used in
STUN Binding Response messages, STUN Binding Response messages
carried in a STUN Send Request or Data Indication, and in a Allocate
Response, and refers to the value of the MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute.
The "RA=" attribute is used in STUN Data Indications, and refers to
the value of the REMOTE-ADDRESS attribute. The "U=" attribute is
used in STUN Requests, and corresponds to the STUN USERNAME. The
"DA=" attribute is used in STUN Send requests, and refers to the
value of the DESTINATION-ADDRESS attribute. The "R=" attribute is
used in Allocate responses, and it indicates the value of the RELAY-
ADDRESS attribute.
The call flow examples omit STUN authentication operations.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
11.1 Basic Example
In this example, the NAT has the address and port independent mapping
property and the address dependent permission property. Neither
agent is using the STUN relay usage, only the binding discovery
usage. As a consequence, agent L will end up with two candidates - a
local candidate and a server reflexive candidate. Agent R will have
one - a local candidate (the reflexive candidate will be identical to
the local one, and thus discarded). The agents are seeking to
communicate using a single RTP-based voice stream. RTCP is not used.
As a consequence, each candidate has one component.
L NAT STUN R
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|RTP STUN alloc. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(1) STUN Req | | |
|S=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|D=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|------------->| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |(2) STUN Req | |
| |S=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |D=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |------------->| |
| | | |
| |(3) STUN Res | |
| |S=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |MA=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |<-------------| |
| | | |
|(4) STUN Res | | |
|S=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|MA=NAT-PUB-1 | | |
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(5) Offer | | |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
|------------------------------------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |RTP STUN alloc.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |(6) STUN Req |
| | |S=R-PUB-1 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |<-------------|
| | | |
| | |(7) STUN Res |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |D=R-PUB-1 |
| | |MA=R-PUB-1 |
| | |------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(8) answer | | |
|<-------------------------------------------|
| | | |
| | | |
|(9) Bind Req | | |
|S=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|D=R-PUB-1 | | |
|------------->| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |(10) Bind Req | |
| |S=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |D=R-PUB-1 | |
| |---------------------------->|
| | | |
| |(11) Bind Res | |
| |S=R-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |MA=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |<----------------------------|
| | | |
|(12) Bind Res | | |
|S=R-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|MA=NAT-PUB-1 | | |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|RTP flows | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |(13) Bind Req | |
| |S=R-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |<----------------------------|
| | | |
| | | |
|(14) Bind Req | | |
|S=R-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
|(15) Bind Res | | |
|S=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|D=R-PUB-1 | | |
|MA=R-PUB-1 | | |
|------------->| | |
| | | |
| |(16) Bind Res | |
| |S=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |D=R-PUB-1 | |
| |MA=R-PUB-1 | |
| |---------------------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |RTP flows
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Figure 7
First, agent L obtains a server reflexive transport address for its
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
RTP packets (messages 1-4). Recall that the NAT has the address and
port independent mapping property. Here, it creates a binding of
NAT-PUB-1 for this UDP request, and this becomes the server reflexive
transport address for RTP, the sole component of its server reflexive
candidate.
With its two candidates, agent L prioritizes them, choosing the local
candidate as highest priority, followed by the server reflexive
candidate. It chooses its server reflexive candidate as the active
candidate, and encodes it into the m/c-line. The resulting offer
(message 5) looks like:
v=0
o=jdoe 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 $L-PRIV-1.IP
s=
c=IN IP4 $STUN-PUB-1.IP
t=0 0
a=ice-pwd:$LPASS
m=audio $STUN-PUB-1.PORT RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=candidate $L1 1 UDP 1.0 $L-PRIV-1.IP $L-PRIV-1.PORT
a=candidate $L2 1 UDP 0.7 $NAT-PUB-1.IP $NAT-PUB-1.PORT
This offer is received at agent R. Agent R will gather its server
reflexive transport address (messages 6-7). Since R is not behind a
NAT, this address is identical to its local transport address, and
thus does not represent a separate candidate. It therefore ends up
with a single local candidate with a single component for RTP. Its
resulting answer looks like:
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 $R-PUB-1.IP
s=
c=IN IP4 $R-PUB-1.IP
t=0 0
a=ice-pwd:$RPASS
m=audio $R-PUB-1.PORT RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=candidate $R1 1 UDP 1.0 $R-PUB-1.IP $R-PUB-1.PORT
Next, agents L and R form candidate pairs and the transport address
check ordered list. This list will start with the single component
in the currently active candidate pair, L2:1:R1:1. Agent L begins
its connectivity checks (messages 9-12), which succeed, placing the
transport address pair and resulting candidate pair into the Recv-
Valid state. Media can now flow. When agent R receives this request
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
(message 10), the state of the candidate pair moves to Send-Valid.
Agent R begins its connectivity checks (messages 13-16). When the
check arrives at the NAT (message 13), it is permitted to pass since
a permission was created towards $R-PUB-1 as a consequence of message
10. This check arrives at agent L, which generates a success
response (message 11), and updates the state of the candidate pair to
Valid. This response arrives at agent R, which also updates the
state of the candidate pair to valid. Now, media can flow from agent
R to agent L as well.
11.2 Advanced Example
In this more advanced example, The NAT has address and port dependent
mapping and filtering properties. Both agents use the STUN relay
usage in addition to the binding discovery usage. As a consequence,
agent L will end up with three candidates - a local candidate, a
relayed candidate, and a server reflexive candidate. Agent R will
have two - a local candidate and a relayed candidate (the server
reflexive candidate will equal the local candidate and thus not be
used). The agents are seeking to communicate using a single RTP-
based voice stream, but are using RTCP. As a consequence, each
candidate has two components - one for RTP and one for RTCP.
L NAT STUN R
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|RTP Alloc. | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(1) Alloc Req | | |
|S=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|D=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|------------->| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |(2) Alloc Req | |
| |S=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |D=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |------------->| |
| |(3) Alloc Res | |
| |S=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |R=STUN-PUB-2 | |
| |MA=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |<-------------| |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
|(4) Alloc Res | | |
|S=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|R=STUN-PUB-2 | | |
|MA=NAT-PUB-1 | | |
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|RTCP Alloc. | | |
|Ta secs. later| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(5) Alloc Req | | |
|S=L-PRIV-2 | | |
|D=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|------------->| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |(6) Alloc Req | |
| |S=NAT-PUB-2 | |
| |D=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |------------->| |
| |(7) Alloc Res | |
| |S=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-2 | |
| |R=STUN-PUB-3 | |
| |MA=NAT-PUB-2 | |
| |<-------------| |
|(8) Alloc Res | | |
|S=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-2 | | |
|R=STUN-PUB-3 | | |
|MA=NAT-PUB-2 | | |
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(9) Offer | | |
|------------------------------------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |RTP Alloc.
| | | |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
| | | |
| | | |
| | |(10) Alloc Req|
| | |S=R-PUB-1 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |<-------------|
| | |(11) Alloc Res|
| | |S=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |D=R-PUB-1 |
| | |R=STUN-PUB-4 |
| | |MA=R-PUB-1 |
| | |------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |RTCP Alloc.
| | | |Ta secs. later
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |(12) Alloc Req|
| | |S=R-PUB-2 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |<-------------|
| | |(13) Alloc Res|
| | |S=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |D=R-PUB-2 |
| | |R=STUN-PUB-5 |
| | |MA=R-PUB-2 |
| | |------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(14) answer | | |
|<-------------------------------------------|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |Validate
| | | |STUN-PUB-4 to STUN-PUB-2
| | | |
| | | |
| | |(15) Send Ind |
| | |S=R-PUB-1 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |DA=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |<-------------|
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
| | | |
| | |Bind Req. |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-4 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |U=L3:1:R2:1 |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |Discard |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|Validate | | |
|STUN-PUB-2 to STUN-PUB-4 | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(16) Send Ind | | |
|S=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|D=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|DA=STUN-PUB-4 | | |
|------------->| | |
| | | |
| |(17) Send Ind | |
| |S=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |D=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |DA=STUN-PUB-4 | |
| |------------->| |
| | | |
| | |Bind Req. |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-4 |
| | |U=R2:1:L3:1 |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |(18) Data Ind |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |D=R-PUB-1 |
| | |RA=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |------------->|
| | |(19) Send Ind |
| | |S=R-PUB-1 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |DA=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |MA=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |<-------------|
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
| | | |
| | |Bind Res. |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-4 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |MA=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | | |
| |(20) Data Ind | |
| |S=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |RA=STUN-PUB-4 | |
| |MA=STUN-PUB-2 | |
| |<-------------| |
|(21) Data Ind | | |
|S=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|RA=STUN-PUB-4 | | |
|MA=STUN-PUB-2 | | |
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |Validate
| | | |STUN-PUB-4 to STUN-PUB-2
| | | |
| | | |
| | |(22) Send Ind |
| | |S=R-PUB-1 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |DA=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |<-------------|
| | | |
| | |Bind Req. |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-4 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |U=L3:1:R2:1 |
| | | |
| | | |
| |(23) Data Ind | |
| |S=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |RA=STUN-PUB-4 | |
| |<-------------| |
| | | |
|(24) Data Ind | | |
|S=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|RA=STUN-PUB-4 | | |
|<-------------| | |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
|(25) Send Ind | | |
|S=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|D=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|DA=STUN-PUB-4 | | |
|MA=STUN-PUB-4 | | |
|------------->| | |
| |(26) Send Ind | |
| |S=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |D=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |DA=STUN-PUB-4 | |
| |MA=STUN-PUB-4 | |
| |------------->| |
| | | |
| | |Bind Res. |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-4 |
| | |MA=STUN-PUB-4 |
| | | |
| | |(27) Data Ind |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |D=R-PUB-1 |
| | |RA=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |MA=STUN-PUB-4 |
| | |------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |Validate
| | | |STUN-PUB-5 to STUN-PUB-3
| | | |
| | | |
| | |(28) Send Ind |
| | |S=R-PUB-2 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |DA=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | |<-------------|
| | | |
| | |Bind Req. |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-5 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | |U=L3:2:R2:2 |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |Discard |
| | | |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|Validate | | |
|STUN-PUB-3 to STUN-PUB-5 | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(29) Send Ind | | |
|S=L-PRIV-2 | | |
|D=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|DA=STUN-PUB-5 | | |
|------------->| | |
| | | |
| |(30) Send Ind | |
| |S=NAT-PUB-2 | |
| |D=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |DA=STUN-PUB-5 | |
| |------------->| |
| | | |
| | |Bind Req. |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-5 |
| | |U=R2:2:L3:2 |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |(31) Data Ind |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |D=R-PUB-2 |
| | |RA=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | |------------->|
| | |(32) Send Ind |
| | |S=R-PUB-2 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |DA=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | |MA=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | |<-------------|
| | | |
| | |Bind Res. |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-5 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | |MA=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | | |
| |(33) Data Ind | |
| |S=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-2 | |
| |RA=STUN-PUB-5 | |
| |MA=STUN-PUB-3 | |
| |<-------------| |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
|(34) Data Ind | | |
|S=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-2 | | |
|RA=STUN-PUB-5 | | |
|MA=STUN-PUB-3 | | |
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |Validate
| | | |STUN-PUB-5 to STUN-PUB-3
| | | |
| | | |
| | |(35) Send Ind |
| | |S=R-PUB-2 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |DA=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | |<-------------|
| | | |
| | |Bind Req. |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-5 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | |U=L3:2:R2:2 |
| | | |
| | | |
| |(36) Data Ind | |
| |S=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-2 | |
| |RA=STUN-PUB-5 | |
| |<-------------| |
| | | |
|(37) Data Ind | | |
|S=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-2 | | |
|RA=STUN-PUB-5 | | |
|<-------------| | |
|(38) Send Ind | | |
|S=L-PRIV-2 | | |
|D=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|DA=STUN-PUB-5 | | |
|MA=STUN-PUB-5 | | |
|------------->| | |
| |(39) Send Ind | |
| |S=NAT-PUB-2 | |
| |D=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |DA=STUN-PUB-5 | |
| |MA=STUN-PUB-5 | |
| |------------->| |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
| | | |
| | |Bind Res. |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-5 |
| | |MA=STUN-PUB-5 |
| | | |
| | |(40) Data Ind |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |D=R-PUB-2 |
| | |RA=STUN-PUB-3 |
| | |MA=STUN-PUB-5 |
| | |------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|RTP flows | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(41) Send Ind | | |
|S=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|D=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|DA=STUN-PUB-4 | | |
|------------->| | |
| | | |
| |(42) Send Ind | |
| |S=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |D=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |DA=STUN-PUB-4 | |
| |------------->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |RTP |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-4 |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |(43) Data Ind |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |D=R-PUB-1 |
| | |RA=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |RTP flows
| | | |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
| | | |
| | |(44) Send Ind |
| | |S=R-PUB-1 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-1 |
| | |DA=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | |<-------------|
| | | |
| | | |
| | |RTP |
| | |S=STUN-PUB-4 |
| | |D=STUN-PUB-2 |
| | | |
| | | |
| |(45) Data Ind | |
| |S=STUN-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-1 | |
| |RA=STUN-PUB-4 | |
| |<-------------| |
| | | |
|(46) Data Ind | | |
|S=STUN-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|RA=STUN-PUB-4 | | |
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|Validate | | |
|L-PRIV-1 to R-PUB-1 | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(47) Bind Req.| | |
|S=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|D=R-PUB-1 | | |
|U=R1:1:L1:1 | | |
|------------->| | |
| | | |
| |(48) Bind Req.| |
| |S=NAT-PUB-3 | |
| |D=R-PUB-1 | |
| |U=R1:1:L1:1 | |
| |---------------------------->|
| | | |
| |(49) Bind Res.| |
| |S=R-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-3 | |
| |MA=NAT-PUB-3 | |
| |<----------------------------|
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
| | | |
|(50) Bind Res.| | |
|S=R-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|MA-NAT-PUB-3 | | |
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |Validate
| | | |R-PUB-1 to L-PRIV-1
| | | |
| | | |
| |(51) Bind Req.| |
| |S=R-PUB-1 | |
| |D=L-PRIV-1 | |
| |U=L1:1:R1:1 | |
| |<----------------------------|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |Discard | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |Validate
| | | |R-PUB-2 to L-PRIV-2
| | | |
| | | |
| |(52) Bind Req.| |
| |S=R-PUB-2 | |
| |D=L-PRIV-2 | |
| |U=L1:2:R1:2 | |
| |<----------------------------|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |Discard | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|Validate | | |
|L-PRIV-2 to R-PUB-2 | |
| | | |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
| | | |
|(53) Bind Req.| | |
|S=L-PRIV-2 | | |
|D=R-PUB-2 | | |
|U=R1:2:L1:2 | | |
|------------->| | |
| | | |
| |(54) Bind Req.| |
| |S=NAT-PUB-4 | |
| |D=R-PUB-2 | |
| |U=R1:2:L1:2 | |
| |---------------------------->|
| | | |
| |(55) Bind Res.| |
| |S=R-PUB-2 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-4 | |
| |MA=NAT-PUB-4 | |
| |<----------------------------|
| | | |
|(56) Bind Res.| | |
|S=R-PUB-2 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-2 | | |
|MA=NAT-PUB-4 | | |
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |Validate
| | | |R-PUB-1 to NAT-PUB-3
| | | |
| | | |
| |(57) Bind Req.| |
| |S=R-PUB-1 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-3 | |
| |U=L1R1:1:R1:1 | |
| |<----------------------------|
| | | |
|(58) Bind Req.| | |
|S=R-PUB-1 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|U=L1R1:1:R1:1 | | |
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
|(59) Bind Res.| | |
|S=L-PRIV-1 | | |
|D=R-PUB-1 | | |
|MA=R-PUB-1 | | |
|------------->| | |
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
| | | |
| |(60) Bind Res.| |
| |S=NAT-PUB-3 | |
| |D=R-PUB-1 | |
| |MA=R-PUB-1 | |
| |---------------------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |Validate
| | | |R-PUB-2 to NAT-PUB-4
| | | |
| | | |
| |(61) Bind Req.| |
| |S=R-PUB-2 | |
| |D=NAT-PUB-4 | |
| |U=L1R1:2:R1:2 | |
| |<----------------------------|
| | | |
|(62) Bind Req.| | |
|S=R-PUB-2 | | |
|D=L-PRIV-2 | | |
|U=L1R1:2:R1:2 | | |
|<-------------| | |
| | | |
|(63) Bind Res.| | |
|S=L-PRIV-2 | | |
|D=R-PUB-2 | | |
|MA=R-PUB-2 | | |
|------------->| | |
| | | |
| |(64) Bind Res.| |
| |S=NAT-PUB-4 | |
| |D=R-PUB-2 | |
| |MA=R-PUB-2 | |
| |---------------------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(65) Offer | | |
|------------------------------------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|(66) Answer | | |
|<-------------------------------------------|
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Figure 10
First, agent L obtains both server reflexive and relayed transport
addresses for its RTP packets, using a STUN Allocate request, which
will provide it with both types of addresses (messages 1-4). Recall
that the NAT has the address and port dependent mapping property.
Here, it creates a binding of NAT-PUB-1 for this UDP request, and
this becomes the server reflexive transport address for RTP. The
relayed transport address is STUN-PUB-2, allocated by the STUN
server. Agent L repeats this process for RTCP (messages 5-8) Ta
seconds later, and obtains NAT-PUB-2 as its server reflexive
transport address for RTCP and STUN-PUB-3 for its relayed transport
address.
With its three candidates, agent L prioritizes them, choosing the
local candidate as highest priority, followed by the server reflexive
candidate, followed by the relayed candidate. It chooses its relayed
candidate as the active candidate, and encodes it into the m/c-line.
The resulting offer (message 17) looks like:
v=0
o=jdoe 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 $L-PRIV-1.IP
s=
c=IN IP4 $STUN-PUB-2.IP
t=0 0
a=ice-pwd:$LPASS
m=audio $STUN-PUB-2.PORT RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtcp:$STUN-PUB-3.PORT
a=candidate $L1 1 UDP 1.0 $L-PRIV-1.IP $L-PRIV-1.PORT
a=candidate $L1 2 UDP 1.0 $L-PRIV-2.IP $L-PRIV-2.PORT
a=candidate $L2 1 UDP 0.7 $NAT-PUB-1.IP $NAT-PUB-1.PORT
a=candidate $L2 2 UDP 0.7 $NAT-PUB-2.IP $NAT-PUB-2.PORT
a=candidate $L3 1 UDP 0.3 $STUN-PUB-2.IP $STUN-PUB-2.PORT
a=candidate $L3 2 UDP 0.3 $STUN-PUB-3.IP $STUN-PUB-3.PORT
This offer is received at agent R. Agent R will gather its server
reflexive and relayed transport addresses for RTP from an Allocate
request (messages 10-11). Since the server reflexive transport
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
address matches its local transport address, no separate candidate is
used for it. The agent then gathers its server reflexive and relayed
transport addresses for RTCP (messages 12-13). It prioritizes the
local candidate with higher priority than the relayed candidate, and
selects the relayed candidate as the active candidate. Its resulting
answer looks like:
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 $R-PUB-1.IP
s=
c=IN IP4 $STUN-PUB-4.IP
t=0 0
a=ice-pwd:$RPASS
m=audio $STUN-PUB-4.PORT RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtcp:$STUN-PUB-5.PORT
a=candidate $R1 1 UDP 1.0 $R-PUB-1.IP $R-PUB-1.PORT
a=candidate $R1 2 UDP 1.0 $R-PUB-2.IP $R-PUB-2.PORT
a=candidate $R2 1 UDP 0.3 $STUN-PUB-4.IP $STUN-PUB-4.PORT
a=candidate $R2 2 UDP 0.3 $STUN-PUB-5.IP $STUN-PUB-5.PORT
Next, agents L and R form candidate pairs and the transport address
check ordered list. This list will start with the two components in
the currently active candidate pair - relayed candidates. Agent R
begins its checks (message 15). It will check connectivity between
the active candidate pair, starting with the first component, which
is STUN-PUB-4 for agent R and STUN-PUB-2 for agent L. The state
machine for that transport address pair moves to the Testing state.
Since this is a relayed transport address for agent R, it utilizes
the STUN Send Indication to deliver the Binding Request. The
DESTINATION-ADDRESS is STUN-PUB-2.
The STUN server will extract the content of the Send indication,
which is a STUN Binding Request, and deliver it to the destination,
STUN-PUB-4. This request will be sent from the relayed address
allocated to R, which is STUN-PUB-4. As both interfaces are on the
STUN server, this message is sent to itself (and thus the lack of a
message number in the sequence diagram above). Note that the
USERNAME in the Binding Request is L3:1:R2:1, which represents the
transport address pair ID. This message gets discarded by the STUN
server since, as of yet, there are no permissions established for the
STUN-PUB-2 allocation. However, it did have the side effect of
establishing a permission on the STUN-PUB-4 binding, allowing
incoming packets from STUN-PUB-2.
Once L gets the offer, it will attempt to validate the first
transport address pair in the transport address pair check ordered
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
list, which will be the active candidate. The state machine for this
transport address pair moves into the Testing state. Like agent R
did, it will use the STUN Send Indication to send a STUN Binding
Request from its relayed transport address, STUN-PUB-2, to STUN-PUB-4
(message 16). This packet traverses the NAT (message 17) and arrives
at the STUN server. The STUN server will unwrap the contents of the
packet and send them from STUN-PUB-2 to STUN-PUB-4. It will also, as
a consequence, add a permission for STUN-PUB-4. The contents of the
packet are a STUN Binding Request with USERNAME R2:1:L3:1 (note how
this is the flip of the USERNAME in the Binding Request sent by agent
R). This is also a packet from the STUN server to itself. However,
now, the packet is not discarded, as a permission had been installed
as a consequence of the "suicide packet" from agent R (a suicide
packet is a packet that has no hope of traversing a far end NAT, but
serves the purpose of enabling a permission in a near end NAT so that
a packet from the peer can be returned). Thus, the STUN server will
relay the received STUN request towards agent R (message 18). This
is delivered as a STUN Data Indication. Notice how the REMOTE-
ADDRESS is STUN-PUB-2; this is important as it will be used to
construct the STUN Binding Response.
Agent R will receive the Data Indication, and unwrap its contents to
find the Binding Request. The state machine for this transport
address pair is currently in the Testing state. It therefore moves
into the Send-Valid state, and it generates a Binding Response.
However, the MAPPED-ADDRESS in the Binding Response is constructed
using the source IP address and port that were seen by the STUN
server when the Binding Request arrived at STUN-PUB-4, which is the
looped message between messages 17 and 18. This source address is
STUN-PUB-2, which is the value of the REMOTE-ADDRESS attribute in
message 18. Thus, the STUN Binding Response will contain STUN-PUB-2
in the MAPPED-ADDRESS, and is to be sent to STUN-PUB-2. To send the
response, agent R takes the STUN Binding Response and encapsulates it
in a STUN Send indication, setting the DESTINATION-ADDRESS to STUN-
PUB-2. This is shown in message 19.
The STUN server will receive this Send Indication, and unwrap its
contents to find the STUN Binding Response. It sends it to the value
of the DESTINATION-ADDRESS attribute, and sends it from the relayed
address allocated to R, which is STUN-PUB-4. This, once again,
results in a looped message to itself, and it arrives at STUN-PUB-2.
Now, however, there is a permission installed for STUN-PUB-4. The
STUN server will therefore forward the packet to agent L. To do so,
it constructs a STUN Data Indication containing the contents of the
packet. It sets the REMOTE-ADDRESS to the source transport address
of the request it received (STUN-PUB-4), and forwards it to agent L
(message 20). This traverses the NAT (message 21) and arrives at
agent L. As a consequence of the receipt of a Binding Response, the
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
state machine for this transport address pair moves to the Recv-Valid
state. The agent also examines the MAPPED-ADDRESS of the STUN
response. It is STUN-PUB-2. This is the same as the native
transport address of this transport address pair, and thus doesn't
represent a new transport address that might have been learned.
Because of the receipt of message 18, the transport address pair
moved from Testing to Send-Valid, causing R to attempt a
retransmission of its STUN Binding Request that was lost (the
contents of message 15 that were discarded by the STUN server due to
lack of permission). This time, however, a permission has been
installed and the retransmission will work. So, it sends the Binding
Request again (message 22, identical to message 15). This is looped
by the STUN server to itself again, but this time there is a
permission in place when it arrives at STUN-PUB-2. As such, the
request is forwarded towards agent L this time, in a STUN Data
Indication (message 23). This traverses the NAT (message 24) and
arrives at agent L. Agent L extracts the contents of the request,
which are a STUN Binding Request. This causes the state machine to
move from Recv-Valid to Valid. It generates a STUN Binding Response,
and sets the MAPPED-ADDRESS to the value of the REMOTE-ADDRESS in
message 24 (STUN-PUB-4). This Binding Response is sent to
STUN-PUB-4, which is accomplished through a STUN Send Indication
(message 25). This Send Indication traverses the NAT (message 26)
and is received by the STUN server. Its contents are decapsulated,
and sent to STUN-PUB-4, which is again a loop on the same host. This
packet is then sent towards agent R in a Data Indication (message
27). The contents of the DATA Indication are extracted, and the
agent sees a successful Binding Response. It therefore moves the
state machine from the Send-Valid state to the Valid state. At this
point, the transport address pair is in the Valid state for both
agents.
Approximately Ta seconds after agent R sent message 15, agent R will
start checks for the next transport address pair in its transport
address pair check ordered list. This is the second component of the
same candidate pair, used for RTCP. This sequence, messages 28
through 40, are identical to the ones for RTP, but differ only in the
specific transport addresses.
Once that validation happens, the second transport address pair has
been validated. The candidate pair moves into the valid state, and
both candidates are considered valid. The active candidate has now
been validated, and media can begin to flow. It will do so through
the STUN server; indeed, it is relayed "twice" through the STUN
server. Even though there is a single STUN server, it is logically
acting as two separate STUN servers. Indeed, had L and R used two
separate STUN servers, media would be relayed through both STUN
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
servers in a trapezoid configuration.
The actual media flows are shown as well. It is important to note
that, since the ICE checks have not yet concluded on the candidate
that will ultimately be used, no STUN Set Active Destinations have
been sent. As a consequence, media that is sent through the STUN
servers has to be sent using STUN Send indications. This introduces
some overhead, but is a transient condition. In message 41, agent L
sends an RTP packet to agent R using a Send indication. It is sent
to STUN-PUB-4. This traverses the NAT (message 42), and arrives at
the STUN server. It is decapsulated, looped to itself, and arrives
at STUN-PUB-4. From there, it is encapsulated in a Data Indication
and sent to agent R (message 43). In the reverse direction, agent R
will send an RTP packet using a STUN Send indication (message 42),
and send it to STUN-PUB-2. This is received by the STUN server,
decapsulated, and sent to STUN-PUB-2 from STUN-PUB-4. This is again
a loop within the same host, arriving at STUN-PUB-4. The contents of
the packet are sent to agent L through a STUN Data Indication
(message 45), which traverses the NAT (message 46) to arrive at agent
L. Since this call flow is already long enough, RTCP packet
transmission is not shown.
Approximately Ta seconds after it sends message 29, agent L goes to
the next transport address pair in its transport address pair check
ordered list that is in the Waiting state. This will be the RTP
candidate for the top priority candidate pair, which is L-PRIV-1 on
agent L and R-PUB-1 on agent R. This is a local candidate for each
agent. To perform the check, agent L sends a STUN Binding Request
from L-PRIV-1 to R-PUB-1 (message 47). Note the USERNAME of
R1:1:L1:1, which identifies this transport address pair. This
traverses the NAT (message 48). Since the NAT has the address and
port dependent mapping property, and this is a new destination IP
address, the NAT allocates a new transport address on its public
side, NAT-PUB-3, and places this in the source IP address and port.
This packet arrives at agent R. Agent R finds a matching transport
address pair in the Waiting state. The state machine transitions to
the Send-Valid state. It sends the Binding response, with a MAPPED-
ADDRESS equal to NAT-PUB-3 (message 49), which traverses the NAT and
arrives at agent L (message 50). Agent R, in addition to sending the
response, will also send a Binding Request. It is important to
remember that this Binding Request is sent to the remote address in
the transport address pair (L-PRIV-1), and NOT to the source IP
address and port of the Binding Request (NAT-PUB-3); that will happen
later. This attempt is shown in message 51. However, since the
L-PRIV-1 is private, the packet is discarded in the network.
Now, as a consequence of receiving message 48, agent R will have
constructed a peer-derived candidate. The candidate ID for this
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
candidate is L1R1, and it initially contains a single transport
address pair, NAT-PUB-3 and R-PUB-1. However, the candidate isn't
yet usable until the other component gets added. Similarly, agent L
will have constructed the same peer-derived candidate, with the same
candidate ID and the same transport address pair.
Some Ta seconds after sending message 28, agent R will move to the
next transport address pair in the transport address pair check
ordered list whose state is Waiting. This is the RTCP component of
the highest priority candidate pair. It will attempt a connectivity
check, from R-PUB-2 to L-PRIV-2 (message 52). Since L-PRIV-1 is
private, this message is discarded.
Some Ta seconds after sending message 47, agent L will move to the
next transport address pair in the transport address pair check
ordered list whose state is Waiting. This is the RTCP component of
the highest priority candidate pair. It will attempt a connectivity
check, from L-PRIV-2 to R-PUB-2 (message 53), which operates nearly
identically to messages 47-50, with the exception of the specific
addresses. Here, the NAT will create a new binding for the RTCP,
NAT-PUB-4, and this transport address is new for both participants.
On receipt of this Binding Request at agent R (message 54), agent R
constructs the candidate ID for the peer-derived candidate, L1R1, and
finds it already exists. As such, this new transport address is
added, and the peer-derived candidate becomes complete and usable.
Agent L does the same thing on receipt of message 56. This candidate
will have the same priority as its generating candidate L1 (1.0), and
is paired up with R1 (also at priority 1.0). Since L1R1 has the same
priority as L1 itself, the ordering algorithm in Section 7.5 will use
the reverse lexicographic order of the candidate ID iself to
determine order. L1R1 is larger than L1, so that the peer-derived
candidate will come before its generating candidate. As a
consequence, the peer-derived candidate pair will have a higher
priority than its generating candidate, and appear just before it in
the candidate pair priority ordered list.
As a consequence, after agent R sends message 55 and completes the
peer-derived candidate, it will move the two transport addresses in
the peer derived candidate into the Send-Valid state, and send a
Binding Request for each in rapid succession (agent L will have moved
both into the Recv-Valid state upon receipt of message 56). The
first of these connectivity checks are for the RTP component, from
R-PUB-1 to NAT-PUB-3 (message 57). Note the USERNAME in the STUN
Binding Request, L1R1:1:R1:1, which identifies the peer-derived
transport address pair. This will succesfully traverse the NAT and
be delivered to agent L (message 58). The receipt of this request
moves the state machine for this transport address pair from Recv-
Valid to Valid, and a Binding Response is sent (message 59). This
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
passes through the NAT and arrives at agent R (message 60). This
causes its state machine to enter the Valid state as well. The
MAPPED-ADDRESS, R-PUB-1, is not new to agent R and thus does not
result in the creation of a new peer-derived candidate.
Messages 61 through 64 show the same basic flow for RTCP. Upon
receipt of message 64, both transport address pairs are Valid at both
agents, causing the peer derived candidate to become valid. Timer
Tws is set at agent L, and fires without any higher priority
candidate pairs becoming validated. At agent R, media can now be
sent on this candidate pair from answerer (agent R) to offerer (agent
L). Agent L sends an updated offer to promote the peer-derived
candidate to active. This offer (message 65) looks like:
v=0
o=jdoe 2890844526 2890842808 IN IP4 $L-PRIV-1.IP
s=
c=IN IP4 $NAT-PUB-3.IP
t=0 0
a=ice-pwd:$LPASS
m=audio $NAT-PUB-3.PORT RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtcp:$NAT-PUB-4.PORT
a=remote-candidate:R1
a=candidate $L1 1 UDP 1.0 $L-PRIV-1.IP $L-PRIV-1.PORT
a=candidate $L1 2 UDP 1.0 $L-PRIV-2.IP $L-PRIV-2.PORT
There are several important things to note in this offer. Firstly,
note how the m/c-line now contains NAT-PUB-3 and NAT-PUB-4, the peer
derived transport addresses it learned through the ICE processing.
Secondly, note how there remains a candidate encoded into the
a=candidate attributes. This is candidate L1, NOT candidate L1R1.
Recall that the peer-derived candidates are never encoded into the
SDP. Rather, their generating candidate is encoded. This will cause
keepalives to take place for the generating candidate if valid
(though its not) and any of its derived candidates, which is what we
want. Finally, notice the inclusion of the a=remote-candidate
attribute. Since agent L doesn't know whether agent R received
messages 60 or 64, it doesnt know whether the state of the candidate
is Send-Valid or Valid at agent R. So, it has to tell agent R that,
in case its Send-Valid, to please use it anyway.
The answer generated by agent R looks like:
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
v=0
o=bob 2808844564 2808844565 IN IP4 $R-PUB-1.IP
s=
c=IN IP4 $R-PUB-1.IP
t=0 0
a=ice-pwd:$RPASS
m=audio $R-PUB-1.PORT RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=rtcp:$R-PUB-2.PORT
a=candidate $R1 1 UDP 1.0 $R-PUB-1.IP $R-PUB-1.PORT
a=candidate $R1 2 UDP 1.0 $R-PUB-2.IP $R-PUB-2.PORT
With this, media can now flow directly between endpoints. The
removal of the relayed candidates from the offer/answer exchange will
cause the STUN relay allocations to be removed.
12. Grammar
This specification defines three new SDP attributes - the
"candidate", "remote-candidate" and "ice-pwd" attributes.
The candidate attribute is a media-level attribute only. It contains
a transport address for a candidate that can be used for connectivity
checks. There may be multiple candidate attributes in a media block.
The syntax of this attribute is defined using Augmented BNF as
defined in RFC 4234 [9]:
candidate-attribute = "candidate" ":" candidate-id SP component-id SP
transport SP
qvalue SP ;qvalue from RFC 3261
addr SP ;addr from RFC 3266
port ;port from RFC 2327
*(SP extension-att-name SP
extension-att-value)
transport = "UDP" / transport-extension
transport-extension = token
candidate-id = 1*base64-char
base64-char = ALPHANUM / DIGIT / "+" / "/"
;ALPHANUM from RFC 3261
component-id = 1*DIGIT
extension-att-name = byte-string ;from RFC 2327
extension-att-value = byte-string
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
The candidate-id is used to group together the transport addresses
for a particular candidate. It MUST be constructed with at least 24
bits of randomness. It MUST have the same value for all transport
addresses within the same candidate. It MUST have a different value
for transport addresses within different candidates for the same
media stream. The candidate-id uses a syntax that is defined to be
equal to the base64 alphabet [3], which allows the candidate-id to be
generated by performing a base64 encoding of a randomly generated
value (note, however, that this does not mean that the candidate-id
or password is base64 decoded when use in STUN messages). In
addition, if content is base64 encoded to generate the candidate-id,
it MUST NOT be padded with '='. The component-id is a positive
integer, which identifies the specific component of the candidate.
It MUST start at 1 and MUST increment by 1 for each component of a
particular candidate.
The addr production is taken from [10], allowing for IPv4 addresses,
IPv6 addresses and FQDNs. The port production is taken from RFC 2327
[5]. The token production is taken from RFC 3261 [2]. The transport
production indicates the transport protocol for the candidate. This
specification only defines UDP. However, extensibility is provided
to allow for future transport protocols to be used with ICE, such as
TCP or the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [34].
The a=candidate attribute can itself be extended. The grammar allows
for new name/value pairs to be added at the end of the attribute. An
implementation MUST ignore any name/value pairs it doesn't
understand.
The syntax of the "remote-candidate" attribute is defined using
Augmented BNF as defined in RFC 4234 [9]:
remote-candidate-att = "remote-candidate" ":" candidate-id
This attribute MUST be present in an offer when the candidate in the
m/c-line is part of a candidate pair that is in the valid or
partially valid state.
The syntax of the "ice-pwd" attribute is defined as:
ice-pwd-att = "ice-pwd" ":" password
password = 1*base64-char
The "ice-pwd" attribute MUST appear at the session-level, and is
consequently shared by all candidates for all media streams within
the session. It MUST have at least 128 bits of randomness. Like the
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
candidate-ID, its syntax is taken from the base64 alphabet, allowing
the password to be generted from a base64 encoding of a 128 bit
value. In addition, if content is base64 encoded to generate the
candidate-id, it MUST NOT be padded with '='.
13. Security Considerations
There are several types of attacks possible in an ICE system. This
section considers these attacks and their countermeasures.
13.1 Attacks on Connectivity Checks
An attacker might attempt to disrupt the STUN-based connectivity
checks. Ultimately, all of these attacks fool an agent into thinking
something incorrect about the results of the connectivity checks.
The possible false conclusions an attacker can try and cause are:
False Invalid: An attacker can fool a pair of agents into thinking a
candidate pair is invalid, when it isn't. This can be used to
cause an agent to prefer a different candidate (such as one
injected by the attacker), or to disrupt a call by forcing all
candidates to fail.
False Valid: An attacker can fool a pair of agents into thinking a
candidate pair is valid, when it isn't. This can cause an agent
to proceed with a session, but then not be able to receive any
media.
False Peer-Derived Candidate: An attacker can cause an agent to
discover a new peer-derived candidate, when it shouldn't have.
This can be used to redirect media streams to a DoS target or to
the attacker, for eavesdropping or other purposes.
False Valid on False Candidate: An attacker has already convinced an
agent that there is a candidate with an address that doesn't
actually route to that agent (for example, by injecting a false
peer-derived candidate or false STUN-derived candidate). It must
then launch an attack that forces the agents to believe that this
candidate is valid.
Of the various techniques for creating faked STUN messages described
in [13], many are not applicable for the connectivity checks.
Compromises of STUN servers are not much of a concern, since the STUN
servers are embedded in endpoints and distributed throughout the
network. Thus, compromising the STUN server is equivalent to
comprimising the endpoint, and if that happens, far more problematic
attacks are possible than those against ICE. Similarly, DNS attacks
are irrelevant since STUN servers are not discovered via DNS, they
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
are signaled via SIP. Injection of fake responses and relaying
modified requests all can be handled in ICE with the countermeasures
discussed below.
To force the false invalid result, the attacker has to wait for the
connectivity check for one of the agents to be sent. When it is, the
attacker needs to inject a fake response with an unrecoverable error
response, such as a 600. This attack only needs to be launched
against one of the agents in order to invalidate the candidate pair.
However, since the candidate is, in fact, valid, the original request
may reach the peer agent, and result in a success response. The
attacker needs to force this packet or its response to be dropped,
through a DoS attack, layer 2 network disruption, or other technique.
If it doesn't do this, the success response will also reach the
originator, alerting it to a possible attack. This will cause the
agent to abandon the candidate, which is the desired result in any
case. Fortunately, this attack is mitigated completely through the
STUN message integrity mechanism. The attacker needs to inject a
fake response, and in order for this response to be processed, the
attacker needs the password. If the offer/answer signaling is
secured, the attacker will not have the password.
Forcing the fake valid result works in a similar way. The agent
needs to wait for the Binding Request from each agent, and inject a
fake success response. The attacker won't need to worry about
disrupting the actual response since, if the candidate is not valid,
it presumably wouldn't be received anyway. However, like the fake
invalid attack, this attack is mitigated completely through the STUN
message integrity and offer/answer security techniques.
Forcing the false peer-derived candidate result can be done either
with fake requests or responses, or with replays. We consider the
fake requests and responses case first. It requires the attacker to
send a Binding Request to one agent with a source IP address and port
for the false transport address. In addition, the attacker must wait
for a Binding Request from the other agent, and generate a fake
response with a MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute. This attack is best
launched against a candidate pair that is likely to be invalid, so
the attacker doesnt need to contend with the actual responses to the
real connectivity checks. Like the other attacks described here,
this attack is mitigated by the STUN message integrity mechanisms and
secure offer/answer exchanges.
Forcing the false peer-derived candidate result with packet replays
is different. The attacker waits until one of the agents sends a
Binding Request for one of the transport address pairs. It then
intercepts this request, and replays it towards the other agent with
a faked source IP address. It must also prevent the original request
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
from reaching the remote agent, either by launching a DoS attack to
cause the packet to be dropped, or forcing it to be dropped using
layer 2 mechanisms. The replayed packet is received at the other
agent, and accepted, since the integrity check passes (the integrity
check cannot and does not cover the source IP address and port). It
is then responded to. This response will contain a MAPPED-ADDRESS
with the false transport address. It is passed to the this false
address. The attacker must then intercept it and relay it towards
the originator.
The other agent will then initiate a connectivity check towards that
transport address. This validation needs to succeed. This requires
the attacker to force a false valid on a false candidate. Injecting
of fake requests or responses to achieve this goal is prevented using
the integrity mechanisms of STUN and the offer/answer exchange.
Thus, this attack can only be launched through replays. To do that,
the attacker must intercept the Binding Request towards this false
transport address, and replay it towards the other agent. Then, it
must intercept the response and replay that back as well.
This attack is very hard to launch unless the attacker themself is
identified by the fake transport address. This is because it
requires the attacker to intercept and replay packets sent by two
different hosts. If both agents are on different networks (for
example, across the public Internet), this attack can be hard to
coordinate, since it needs to occur against two different endpoints
on different parts of the network at the same time.
If the attacker themself is identified by the fake transport address,
the attack is easier to coordinate. However, if SRTP is used [24],
the attacker will not be able to play the media packets, they will
only be able to discard them, effectively disabling the media stream
for the call. However, this attack requires the agent to disrupt
packets in order to block the connectivity check from reaching the
target. In that case, if the goal is to disrupt the media stream,
its much easier to just disrupt it with the same mechanism, rather
than attack ICE.
13.2 Attacks on Address Gathering
ICE endpoints make use of STUN for gathering addresses from a STUN
server in the network. This is corresponds to the binding
acquisition use case discussed in Section 10.1 of [13]. As a
consequence, the attacks against STUN itself that are described in
Section 12 [13] can still be used against the STUN address gathering
operations that occur in ICE.
However, the additional mechanisms provided by ICE actually
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
counteract such attacks, making binding acquisition with STUN more
secure when combined with ICE than without ICE.
Consider an attacker which is able to provide an agent with a faked
MAPPED-ADDRESS in a STUN Binding Request that is used for address
gathering. This is the primary attack primitive described in Section
12 of [13]. This address will be used as a STUN derived candidate in
the ICE exchange. For this candidate to actually be used for media,
the attacker must also attack the connectivity checks, and in
particular, force a false valid on a false candidate. This attack is
very hard to launch if the false address identifies a third party,
and is prevented by SRTP if it identifies the attacker themself.
If the attacker elects not to attack the connectivity checks, the
worst it can do is prevent the STUN-derived address from being used.
However, if the peer agent has at least one address that is reachable
by the agent under attack, the STUN connectivity checks themselves
will provide a STUN-derived address that can be used for the exchange
of media. Peer derived candidates are preferred over the candidate
they are generated from for this reason. As such, an attack solely
on the STUN address gathering will normally have no impact on a call
at all.
13.3 Attacks on the Offer/Answer Exchanges
An attacker that can modify or disrupt the offer/answer exchanges
themselves can readily launch a variety of attacks with ICE. They
could direct media to a target of a DoS attack, they could insert
themselves into the media stream, and so on. These are similar to
the general security considerations for offer/answer exchanges, and
the security considerations in RFC 3264 [4] apply. These require
techniques for message integrity and encryption for offers and
answers, which are satisfied by the SIPS mechanism [2] when SIP is
used. As such, the usage of SIPS with ICE is RECOMMENDED.
13.4 Insider Attacks
In addition to attacks where the attacker is a third party trying to
insert fake offers, answers or stun messages, there are several
attacks possible with ICE when the attacker is an authenticated and
valid participant in the ICE exchange.
13.4.1 The Voice Hammer Attack
The voice hammer attack is an amplification attack, of the variety
discussed in Section 3 of [32]. In this attack, the attacker
initiates sessions to other agents, and includes the IP address and
port of a DoS target in the m/c-line of their SDP. This causes
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
substantial amplification; a single offer/answer exchange can create
a continuing flood of media packets, possibly at high rates (consider
video sources). This attack is not speific to ICE, but ICE can help
provide remediation.
Specifically, if ICE is used, the agent receiving the malicious SDP
will first peform connectivity checks to the target of media before
sending it there. If this target is a third party host, the checks
will not succeed, and media is never sent.
Unfortunately, ICE doesn't help if its not used, in which case an
attacker could simply send the offer without the ICE parameters.
However, in environments where the set of clients are known, and
limited to ones that support ICE, the server can reject any offers or
answers that don't indicate ICE support.
13.4.2 STUN Amplification Attack
The STUN amplification attack is similar to the voice hammer.
However, instead of voice packets being directed to the target, STUN
connectivity checks are directed to the target. This attack is
accomplished by having the offerer send an offer with a large number
of candidates, say 50. The answerer receives the offer, and starts
its checks, which are directed at the target, and consequently, never
generate a response. The answerer will start a new connectivity
check every 50ms, and each check is a STUN transaction consisting of
9 retransmits of a message 64 bytes in length. This produces a
fairly substantial 92 kbps, just in STUN requests.
It is impossible to eliminate the amplification, but the volume can
be reduced through a variety of heuristics. For example, agents can
limit the number of candidates they'll accept in an offer or answer,
they can increase the value of Ta, or exponentially increase Ta as
time goes on. All of these ultimately trade off the time for the ICE
exchanges to complete, with the amount of traffic that gets sent.
14. IANA Considerations
This specification defines three new SDP attribute per the procedures
of Appendix B of RFC 2327. The required information for the
registrations are included here.
14.1 candidate Attribute
Contact Name: Jonathan Rosenberg, jdrosen@jdrosen.net.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Attribute Name: candidate
Long Form: candidate
Type of Attribute: media level
Charset Considerations: The attribute is not subject to the charset
attribute.
Purpose: This attribute is used with Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE), and provides one of many possible candidate
addresses for communication. These addresses are validated with
an end-to-end connectivity check using Simple Traversal of UDP
with NAT (STUN).
Appropriate Values: See Section 12 of RFC XXXX [Note to RFC-ed:
please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification].
14.2 remote-candidate Attribute
Contact Name: Jonathan Rosenberg, jdrosen@jdrosen.net.
Attribute Name: remote-candidate
Long Form: remote-candidate
Type of Attribute: media level
Charset Considerations: The attribute is not subject to the charset
attribute.
Purpose: This attribute is used with Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE), and provides the identity of the remote
candidate that the offerer wishes the answerer to use in its
answer.
Appropriate Values: See Section 12 of RFC XXXX [Note to RFC-ed:
please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification].
14.3 ice-pwd Attribute
Contact Name: Jonathan Rosenberg, jdrosen@jdrosen.net.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Attribute Name: ice-pwd
Long Form: ice-pwd
Type of Attribute: session level
Charset Considerations: The attribute is not subject to the charset
attribute.
Purpose: This attribute is used with Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE), and provides the password used to protect
STUN connectivity checks.
Appropriate Values: See Section 12 of RFC XXXX [Note to RFC-ed:
please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification].
15. IAB Considerations
The IAB has studied the problem of "Unilateral Self Address Fixing",
which is the general process by which a agent attempts to determine
its address in another realm on the other side of a NAT through a
collaborative protocol reflection mechanism [22]. ICE is an example
of a protocol that performs this type of function. Interestingly,
the process for ICE is not unilateral, but bilateral, and the
difference has a signficant impact on the issues raised by IAB. The
IAB has mandated that any protocols developed for this purpose
document a specific set of considerations. This section meets those
requirements.
15.1 Problem Definition
From RFC 3424 any UNSAF proposal must provide:
Precise definition of a specific, limited-scope problem that is to
be solved with the UNSAF proposal. A short term fix should not be
generalized to solve other problems; this is why "short term
fixes usually aren't".
The specific problems being solved by ICE are:
Provide a means for two peers to determine the set of transport
addresses which can be used for communication.
Provide a means for resolving many of the limitations of other
UNSAF mechanisms by wrapping them in an additional layer of
processing (the ICE methodology).
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Provide a means for a agent to determine an address that is
reachable by another peer with which it wishes to communicate.
15.2 Exit Strategy
From RFC 3424, any UNSAF proposal must provide:
Description of an exit strategy/transition plan. The better short
term fixes are the ones that will naturally see less and less use
as the appropriate technology is deployed.
ICE itself doesn't easily get phased out. However, it is useful even
in a globally connected Internet, to serve as a means for detecting
whether a router failure has temporarily disrupted connectivity, for
example. However, what ICE does is help phase out other UNSAF
mechanisms. ICE effectively selects amongst those mechanisms,
prioritizing ones that are better, and deprioritizing ones that are
worse. Local IPv6 addresses can be preferred. As NATs begin to
dissipate as IPv6 is introduced, derived transport addresses from
other UNSAF mechanisms simply never get used, because higher priority
connectivity exists. Therefore, the servers get used less and less,
and can eventually be remove when their usage goes to zero.
Indeed, ICE can assist in the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. It can
be used to determine whether to use IPv6 or IPv4 when two dual-stack
hosts communicate with SIP (IPv6 gets used). It can also allow a
network with both 6to4 and native v6 connectivity to determine which
address to use when communicating with a peer.
15.3 Brittleness Introduced by ICE
From RFC3424, any UNSAF proposal must provide:
Discussion of specific issues that may render systems more
"brittle". For example, approaches that involve using data at
multiple network layers create more dependencies, increase
debugging challenges, and make it harder to transition.
ICE actually removes brittleness from existing UNSAF mechanisms. In
particular, traditional STUN (the usage described in [13]) has
several points of brittleness. One of them is the discovery process
which requires a agent to try and classify the type of NAT it is
behind. This process is error-prone. With ICE, that discovery
process is simply not used. Rather than unilaterally assessing the
validity of the address, its validity is dynamically determined by
measuring connectivity to a peer. The process of determining
connectivity is very robust. The only potential problem is that
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
bilaterally fixed addresses through STUN can expire if traffic does
not keep them alive. However, that is substantially less brittleness
than the STUN discovery mechanisms.
Another point of brittleness in STUN and any other unilateral
mechanism is its absolute reliance on an additional server. ICE
makes use of a server for allocating unilateral addresses, but allows
agents to directly connect if possible. Therefore, in some cases,
the failure of a STUN server would still allow for a call to progress
when ICE is used.
Another point of brittleness in traditional STUN is that it assumes
that the STUN server is on the public Internet. Interestingly, with
ICE, that is not necessary. There can be a multitude of STUN servers
in a variety of address realms. ICE will discover the one that has
provided a usable address.
The most troubling point of brittleness in traditional STUN is that
it doesn't work in all network topologies. In cases where there is a
shared NAT between each agent and the STUN server, traditional STUN
may not work. With ICE, that restriction can be lifted.
Traditional STUN also introduces some security considerations.
Fortunately, those security considerations are also mitigated by ICE.
15.4 Requirements for a Long Term Solution
From RFC 3424, any UNSAF proposal must provide:
Identify requirements for longer term, sound technical solutions
-- contribute to the process of finding the right longer term
solution.
Our conclusions from STUN remain unchanged. However, we feel ICE
actually helps because we believe it can be part of the long term
solution.
15.5 Issues with Existing NAPT Boxes
From RFC 3424, any UNSAF proposal must provide:
Discussion of the impact of the noted practical issues with
existing, deployed NA[P]Ts and experience reports.
A number of NAT boxes are now being deployed into the market which
try and provide "generic" ALG functionality. These generic ALGs hunt
for IP addresses, either in text or binary form within a packet, and
rewrite them if they match a binding. This will interfere with
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
proper operation of any UNSAF mechanism, including ICE.
16. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Flemming Andreasen, Rohan Mahy, Dean
Willis, Dan Wing, Douglas Otis, and Francois Audet for their comments
and input. A special thanks goes to Magnus Westerlund for doing
several detailed reviews on the various revisions of this
specification. His input led to many substantive improvements in
this document.
17. References
17.1 Normative References
[1] Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute in
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605, October 2003.
[2] 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.
[3] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings",
RFC 3548, July 2003.
[4] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.
[5] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.
[6] Casner, S., "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Bandwidth
Modifiers for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Bandwidth", RFC 3556,
July 2003.
[7] Camarillo, G., Marshall, W., and J. Rosenberg, "Integration of
Resource Management and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 3312, October 2002.
[8] Camarillo, G. and P. Kyzivat, "Update to the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Preconditions Framework", RFC 4032, March 2005.
[9] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
[10] Olson, S., Camarillo, G., and A. Roach, "Support for IPv6 in
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3266, June 2002.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
[11] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of Provisional
Responses in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3262,
June 2002.
[12] Yon, D., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-10
(work in progress), November 2004.
[13] Rosenberg, J., "Simple Traversal of UDP Through Network Address
Translators (NAT) (STUN)", draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-02
(work in progress), July 2005.
[14] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., and C. Huitema, "Obtaining Relay
Addresses from Simple Traversal of UDP Through NAT (STUN)",
Internet Draft draft-ietf-behave-turn-00.txt, February 2006.
17.2 Informative References
[15] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A., and R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming
Protocol (RTSP)", RFC 2326, April 1998.
[16] Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., and R. Mahy, "STUN
- Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through
Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489, March 2003.
[17] Senie, D., "Network Address Translator (NAT)-Friendly
Application Design Guidelines", RFC 3235, January 2002.
[18] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An RTP Payload Format for
Generic Forward Error Correction", RFC 2733, December 1999.
[19] Srisuresh, P., Kuthan, J., Rosenberg, J., Molitor, A., and A.
Rayhan, "Middlebox communication architecture and framework",
RFC 3303, August 2002.
[20] Borella, M., Lo, J., Grabelsky, D., and G. Montenegro, "Realm
Specific IP: Framework", RFC 3102, October 2001.
[21] Borella, M., Grabelsky, D., Lo, J., and K. Taniguchi, "Realm
Specific IP: Protocol Specification", RFC 3103, October 2001.
[22] Daigle, L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-
Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation",
RFC 3424, November 2002.
[23] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
RFC 3550, July 2003.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
[24] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004.
[25] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via
IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[26] Zopf, R., "Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for
Comfort Noise (CN)", RFC 3389, September 2002.
[27] Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE
Method", RFC 3311, October 2002.
[28] Bonica, R., Kompella, K., and D. Meyer, "Tracing Requirements
for Generic Tunnels", RFC 3609, September 2003.
[29] Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "Early Media and Ringing Tone
Generation in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3960,
December 2004.
[30] Andreasen, F., "Connectivity Preconditions for Session
Description Protocol Media Streams",
draft-ietf-mmusic-connectivity-precon-01 (work in progress),
October 2005.
[31] Andreasen, F., "A No-Op Payload Format for RTP",
draft-ietf-avt-rtp-no-op-00 (work in progress), May 2005.
[32] Rescorla, E. and M. Handley, "Internet Denial of Service
Considerations", draft-iab-dos-03 (work in progress),
September 2005.
[33] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs",
draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-05 (work in progress), April 2005.
[34] Kohler, E., "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)",
draft-ietf-dccp-spec-13 (work in progress), December 2005.
[35] Lazzaro, J., "Framing RTP and RTCP Packets over Connection-
Oriented Transport", draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans-06
(work in progress), September 2005.
[36] Hellstrom, G., "RTP Payload for Text Conversation",
draft-ietf-avt-rfc2793bis-09 (work in progress), August 2004.
[37] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for
Unicast UDP", Internet Draft draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp-00.txt,
February 2006.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Author's Address
Jonathan Rosenberg
Cisco Systems
600 Lanidex Plaza
Parsippany, NJ 07054
US
Phone: +1 973 952-5000
Email: jdrosen@cisco.com
URI: http://www.jdrosen.net
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft ICE March 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Rosenberg Expires September 7, 2006 [Page 92]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/