[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01
NAT Working Group Matt Holdrege
INTERNET-DRAFT Ascend Communications
Category: Informational Pyda Srisuresh
Lucent Technologies
Expires in six months November 1998
IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Protocol Issues.
<draft-ietf-nat-protocol-issues-01.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. 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."
To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check
the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net
(Northern Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au
(Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu
(US West Coast).
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
Preface:
Many common internet applications can be adversely affected when the
end-to-end significance of an IP packet is disrupted. Network
Address Translation (NAT) can cause such disruptions both at the
protocol level and with application data.
While there are ready solutions for NATing each protocol listed,
this document is only concerned with defining the native
limitations. Future versions of this document may discuss
workarounds.
*NOTE* the authors wish to make it clear that this work is editorial
in nature and that input from the Internet society is requested in
order to better cover the range of applications that can be affected
by NAT. This is a work in progress.
Introduction:
NAT provides a transparent routing solution to end hosts trying to
communicate from disparate routing realms. This transparent routing
Holdrege & Srisuresh [Page 1]
I-D NAT Protocol Issues November 1998
is achieved by modifying end node addresses en-route and maintaining
state for these updates so that datagrams pertaining to a session
are transparently routed to the right end-node in either realm.
NAT's fundamental role is to alter the addresses in the IP header of
a packet.
NAT can use much of the same solution set as a Stateful Inspection
firewall. However, NAT must also be able to recompose valid data in
the control streams, since it must change the address (and perhaps
port) information. This is because the application running on a host
machine is typically unaware of NAT and thus populates messages
with addressing information that is not valid on the opposite side
of the NAT device.
One problem area is when a packet contains significant IP address or
port information in the payload of the packet rather than the
header. Network applications which use protocols that exhibit this
behavior will have problems when a NAT device is in mid-stream. In
the next section we will attempt to document standard protocols
which have significant address information in the payload of the
packet.
FTP REFERENCE: RFC 959
FTP is a TCP based application, used to reliably transfer files
between two hosts.
FTP is initiated by a client accessing a well-known port number 21
on the FTP server. This is called the FTP control session. Often,
an additional data session accompanies the control session. By
default, the data session would be from TCP port 20 on server to the
TCP port client used to initiate control session. However, the data
session ports may be altered within the FTP control sessions using
ASCII encoded PORT and PASV commands and responses.
Say, an FTP client is in a NAT supported private network. NAT will
be required to monitor the FTP control session (for both PORT and
PASV modes) to identify the FTP data session port numbers and modify
the private address and port number with the externally valid
address and port number. In addition, the sequence and
acknowledgement numbers, TCP checksum, IP packet length and checksum
have to be updated. Consequently the sequence numbers in all
subsequent packets for that stream must be adjusted as well as TCP
ACK fields and checksums.
Another issue can arise when applications when addresses and port
numbers are encoded with ASCII. Changing these numbers can change
the size of the overall packet. In rare cases, increasing the size
of the packet could cause it to exceed the MTU of a given transport
link. The packet would then have to be fragmented which could affect
performance. Or if the packet has the DF bit set, it would be ICMP
rejected and the originating host would then perform Path MTU
Discovery. This could also have an adverse effect on performance.
Holdrege & Srisuresh [Page 2]
I-D NAT Protocol Issues November 1998
H.323V1 REFERENCE ITU-T SG16 H.323, Intel white paper, H.323 and
Firewalls Dave Chouinard, John Richardson, Milind Khare (with
further assistance from Jamie Jason).
H.323 is complex, uses dynamic ports, and includes multiple UDP
streams. Here is a summary of the relevant issues:
An H.323 call is made up of many different simultaneous connections.
At least two of the connections are TCP. For an audio-only
conference, there may be up to 4 different UDP 'connections' made.
All connections except one are made to ephemeral (dynamic) ports.
Calls can be initiated from the Internet, as well as from inside the
NAT device. For conferencing to be useful, external users need to be
able to establish calls directly with internal users' desktop
systems.
The addresses and port numbers are exchanged within the data stream
of the 'next higher' connection. For example, the port number for
the H.245 connection is established within the Q.931 data stream.
(This makes it particularly difficult for NAT devices, which must
modify the addresses inside those data streams.) To make matters
worse, it is possible in Q.931, for example, to specify that the
H.245 connection should be secure (encrypted).
Most of the control information is encoded in ASN.1 (only the User-
User Information within Q.931 Protocol Data Units, or PDUs, is
ASN.1-encoded (other parts of each Q.931 PDU are not encoded). For
those unfamiliar with ASN.1, suffice it to say that it is a complex
encoding scheme, which does not end up with fixed byte offsets for
address information. In fact, the same version of the same
application connecting to the same destination may negotiate to
include different options, changing the byte offsets.
Below is the protocol exchange for a typical H.323 call between User
A and User B. A's IP address is 88.88.88.88 and B's IP address is
99.99.99.99. Note that the Q.931 and H.245 messages are encoded in
ASN.1 in the payload of an RTP packet. So to accomplish a connection
through a NAT device, we would have to go into the packet, decode
the ASN.1, and translate the various H.323 control IP addresses.
User A User B
A establishes connection to B on well-
known Q.931 port (1720)
----------------------------------------------->
Q.931 Setup caller address = 88.88.88.88
caller port = 1120
callee address = 99.99.99.99
callee port = 1720
<-----------------------------------------------
Q.931 Alerting
<-----------------------------------------------
Holdrege & Srisuresh [Page 3]
I-D NAT Protocol Issues November 1998
Q.931 Connect H.245 address = 99.99.99.99
H.245 port = 1092
User A establishes connection to User B at
99.99.99.99, port 1092
<---------------------------------------------->
Several H.245 messages are exchanged (Terminal
Capability Set, Master Slave Determination and
their respective ACKs)
<-----------------------------------------------
H.245 Open Logical Channel, channel = 257
RTCP address = 99.99.99.99
RTCP port = 1093
----------------------------------------------->
H.245 Open Logical Channel Ack, channel = 257
RTP address = 88.88.88.88
RTP port = 2002
(This is where User A would like RTP
data sent to)
RTCP address = 88.88.88.88
RTCP port = 2003
----------------------------------------------->
H.245 Open Logical Channel, channel = 257
RTCP address = 88.88.88.88
RTCP port = 2003
<-----------------------------------------------
H.245 Open Logical Channel Ack, channel = 257
RTP address = 99.99.99.99
RTP port = 1092
(This is where User B would like RTP data
sent to)
RTCP address = 99.99.99.99
RTP port = 1093
Also note that if an H.323 Gateway resided inside a NAT boundary,
any of the various gateway discovery schemes being discussed for use
would have difficulty working through NAT. Or if just the H.323
host/terminal was inside the NAT boundary and tried to register with
a Gatekeeper, the IP information in the registration messages would
have to be translated by NAT.
RSVP Reference RFC 2205
RSVP is positioned in the protocol stack at the transport layer,
operating on top of IP (either IPv4 or IPv6). However, unlike other
transport protocols, RSVP does not transport application data but
instead acts like other Internet control protocols (for example,
ICMP, IGMP, routing protocols). RSVP messages are sent hop-by-hop
between RSVP-capable routers as raw IP datagrams using protocol
number 46. It is intended that raw IP datagrams should be used
Holdrege & Srisuresh [Page 4]
I-D NAT Protocol Issues November 1998
between the end systems and the first (or last) hop router.
However, this may not always be possible as not all systems can do
raw network I/O. Because of this, it is possible to encapsulate RSVP
messages within UDP datagrams for end-system communication. UDP-
encapsulated RSVP messages are sent to either port 1698 (if sent by
an end system) or port 1699 (if sent by an RSVP-enabled router). For
more information concerning UDP encapsulation of RSVP messages,
consult Appendix C of RFC 2205.
An RSVP session, a data flow with a particular destination and
transport-layer protocol, is defined by:
Destination Address - the destination IP address for the data
packets. This may be either a unicast or a multicast address.
Protocol ID - the IP protocol ID (for example, UDP or TCP).
Destination Port - a generalized destination port which is used for
demultiplexing at a layer above the IP layer.
NAT devices are presented with unique problems when it comes to
supporting RSVP. Two issues are...
1. RSVP message objects may contain IP addresses. The result is that
NAT must be able to replace the IP addresses based upon the
direction and type of the message. For example, if an external
sender were to send an RSVP Path message to an internal receiver,
the RSVP Session will specify the IP address that the external
sender believes is the IP address of the internal receiver. However,
when the RSVP Path message reaches the NAT device, the RSVP Session
must be changed to reflect the IP address that is used internally
for the receiver. Similar actions must be taken for all message
objects that contain IP addresses.
2. RSVP provides a means, the RSVP Integrity object, to guarantee
the integrity of RSVP messages. The problem is that because of the
first point, a NAT device must be able to change IP addresses within
the RSVP messages. However, when this is done, the RSVP Integrity
object is no longer valid as the RSVP message has been changed.
DNS:
Domain Names are an issue for hosts which use local DNS servers
behind a NAT device. Such servers return site specific information
which may conflict with true Internet names and addresses.
Also DNS Zone Transfers are not translated by NAT and should not be
sent through a NAT device.
A DNS resolver is a UDP based application, initiated by accessing a
well-known UDP port number 53 on a DNS server.
CHARACTERISTICS:
Holdrege & Srisuresh [Page 5]
I-D NAT Protocol Issues November 1998
A. UDP based protocol.
B. Inverse name lookup queries embed the IP address in ASCII
format. For example, a resolver that wanted to find the
hostname of an address 198.76.29.1 (externally assigned
address of a private realm host) would pursue a query of
the form:
QTYPE = PTR, QCLASS= IN, QNAME = 1.29.76.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA
An ALG is required to translate the query while forwarding to a DNS
server within private realm, so that the query will appear as
follows (replacing the externally assigned address with its private
address).
QTYPE = PTR, QCLASS= IN, QNAME = 1.0.0.10.IN-ADDR.ARPA
Clearly, payload length could change when payload is
translated.
C. Serial reuse of an address assignment between independent
sessions. This requires that the ALG keep the address
assignment (between private and external addresses) valid
for a pre-configured period of time, past the DNS query.
Ex: DNS queries assume that the address assigned in response
to a name lookup is serially reusable by a follow-on
application.
D. A single DNS query payload could contain multiple queries at the
same time, requiring translation of multiple addresses within
a private domain.
CONFIGURATION ISSUES:
DNS name to address mapping for hosts in private domain should be
configured on an authorititive name server within the private
domain. This server would be accessed by external and internal hosts
alike for name resolutions. A DNS ALG would be required to perform
address to name conversions on DNS queries and responses.
Alternately, if there isnt a need for a name server within private
domain, private domain hosts could simply point to an external name
server for external name lookup. No ALG is required when the name
server is located in external domain.
WHAT BREAKS: Authoritative name server for public domain access mUst
not contain hosts with private IP addresses.
ADDITIONAL INFO: Refer RFC 1034, RFC 1035, DNS-ALG draft
EMAIL: E-Mail programs - sendmail, Eudora, and others.
Holdrege & Srisuresh [Page 6]
I-D NAT Protocol Issues November 1998
DESCRIPTION: All e-mail programs listed above operate based on a
TCP based SMTP protocol and use a well-known port number 25 to send
messages and to listen on incoming messages.
CHARACTERISTICS:
A. SMTP is a TCP based protocol, based on a well known TCP port
number 25.
B. Mail messages are not expected to contain reference to
private IP addresses or links to content data via names
that are not visible to outside.
CONFIGURATION ISSUES:
You need to specify a mail server, with a globally assigned IP
address to receive mail from external hosts.
Generally speaking, you would want to configure your mail system
such that all users specify a single centralized address (such as
fooboo@company.com), instead of including individual hosts (such as
fooboo@hostA.company.com). The central address must have an MX
record specified in the DNS name server accessible by external
hosts.
The mail server may be located within or outside private domain.
But, the requirement is that the server be assigned a global name
and address, accessible by external hosts.
NAT would not perform any payload translation on SMTP messages.
When mail server is located within private domain, inbound SMTP
sessions must be redirected to the private host from its externally
assigned address. No special mapping is required when Mail server is
located in external domain.
WHAT BREAKS: When the mail message contains reference to private IP
addresses or links to content data via names that are not visible to
outside.
ADDITIONAL INFO: RFC 821.
X-Windows:
DESCRIPTION: These applications are TCP based. However, the
client-server relationship with these applications is reverse
compared to most other applications. The X-server or Open-windows
server is the display/mouse/keyboard unit (i.e., the one that
controls the actual Windows interface). The clients are the
application programs driving the Windows interface.
Some machines run multiple X-Windows servers on the same machine.
The first X-windows server is at TCP port 6000. The first Open
Holdrege & Srisuresh [Page 7]
I-D NAT Protocol Issues November 1998
Windows server can be at port 6000 or port 2000 (more flexible). We
will refer X-windows mainly for illustration purposes here.
On a UNIX system, the csh DISPLAY command "setenv DISPLAY
<hostname>:n", where n>= 0, is used to tell clients to contact X
server on <hostname> on TCP port (6000+n). It is very unlikely to be
running more than a few (say 4) X-servers at a time on a host.
Most common use of this application is people dialing in to
corporate offices from their X terminals at home.
CHARACTERISTICS:
A. X-Windows is a TCP based protocol, with the server
servicing TCP ports in the range of 6000 - 6000+n.
Open-Windows is also a TCP based protocol, with the server
servicing TCP ports in the range of 6000 - 6000+n or
2000 - 2000+n.
B. The X-Windows applications are not expected to contain
reference to private IP addresses or links to content
data via names that are not visible to the outside. All
the information required for Client-Server communication
is in the IP and TCP headers.
CONFIGURATION ISSUES:
When X-Windows server (i.e., the machine that displays the X-Windows
on its console) runs in a private domain, we need to allow inbound
X-server access for the X terminals at home. I.e., Users that need
to provide X-terminal access must have inbound access permissions.
This can be done statically or dynamically for private hosts.
In case of a NAPT setup, the individual X-Windows ports namely,
6000, 6001, 6002, 6003 and so on till (6000+n) on the external
address may be statically redirected to different hosts running X-
server.
For Example, you could redirect inbound TCP sessions to <External
address>:6000 to <private Host A>, sessions to <External
Address>:6001 to <private Host B> and so on.
WHAT BREAKS: Accessing more X-servers than are configured.
ADDITIONAL INFO: RFC 1198.
RealAudio
DESCRIPTION: In its default mode, clients (say, in a private
domain) access TCP port 7070 to initiate conversation with a real-
audio server (say, located an external domain) and to exchange
Holdrege & Srisuresh [Page 8]
I-D NAT Protocol Issues November 1998
control messages during playback (ex: pausing or stopping the audio
stream).
The actual audio traffic is carried on incoming UDP based packets
(originated from the server) directed to ports in the range of
6970-7170.
CHARACTERISTICS:
A. Real Audio has a TCP control session in one direction directed
to a well-known port (7070) and the UDP based audio session in
the opposite direction.
B. Audio session parameters are embedded in the TCP control
session as byte stream(?)
CONFIGURATION
You could have an ALG examine the TCP traffic to determine the audio
session parameters and selectively enable inbound UDP sessions for
the ports agreed upon in the TCP control session. Alternately, the
ALG could simply redirect all inbound UDP sessions directed to ports
6970-7170 to the client address in the private domain.
For bi-Directional NAT, you will not need an ALG. Bi-directional NAT
could simply treat each of the TCP and UDP sessions as 2 unrelated
sessions and simply perform IP and TCP/UDP header level
translations.
WHAT BREAKS:
ADDITIONAL INFO: http://www.real.com/firewall/packetfil.html
Activision Games
DESCRIPTION: The goal of Activision Games is to work transparently
through traditional NAT devices. As such, the protocol described is
intended to be NAT friendly so game players within a private domain
can play with other players in the same domain or external domain.
All peers are somehow informed of each others' public and private
addresses, and each client opens up symmetrical direct connections
to each other and use whichever address (private or external) works
first.
Now, the clients can have a session directly with other clients
directly (or) they can have session with other clients via the
gaming server.
CHARACTERISTICS:
Holdrege & Srisuresh [Page 9]
I-D NAT Protocol Issues November 1998
A. Activision gaming protocol is proprietary and is based on UDP.
The server uses UDP port no. 21157.
B. The protocol is designed with keeping NAT and NAPT in mind. The
game players can be within the same private domain, in a combination
of multiple private domains and external domain.
C. The key is to allow the reuse of the tuple of the same (global
address, assigned UDP port) for initial connection to the game
server (helper) and the subsequent connection to the client. A game
player is recognized by one of (private address, UDP port) or
(Assigned global address, assigned UDP port) by all other peer
players. So, the binding between tuples should remain unchanged so
long as the gaming player is in session with one or multiple other
players.
CONFIGURATION ISSUES:
Opening a connection to a game server in external realm from a
private host is no problem. All NAT would have to do is provide
routing transparency.
But, an NAPT configuration MUST allow multiple simultaneous UDP
connections on the same assigned global address/port.
ADDITIONAL INFO:
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/HyperNews/get/linux-ip-nat/97.html
http://newjersey1.activision.com/anet2
http://california3.activision.com/anet2
ROUTING UPDATES:
Routing updates from the Internet will not be translated through NAT
and have no significance to routers behind a NAT device. Conversely
routing updates from behind NAT should not be forwarded to the
Internet.
SECURITY:
Another class of problems with NAT is end-to-end security of
packets. The IPsec AH standard [RFC 1826] is explicitly intended to
prevent what NAT is good at. That is altering the header of the
packet. So when NAT does what it is supposed to do by altering the
address information in the header of the packet, the destination
host receives the altered packet and begins digesting the AH
message. The AH routines at this host will invalidate the packet
since the contents of the headers have been altered. Depending on
the configuration of the end host, the packet could be simply
Holdrege & Srisuresh [Page 10]
I-D NAT Protocol Issues November 1998
dropped, or higher layer security activities could be started.
Other IPsec protocols with NAT issues:
Protocol Issues
ESP: Protects/obscures the packet contents (which would
need to be visible for NATing some protocols).
IKE: Potentially passes IP addresses during both Main, Aggressive
and Quick Modes. In order for a negotiation to correctly pass
through a NAT, these payloads would need to be modified. However,
these payloads are often protected by hash or obscured by
encryption.
Authors Addresses:
Matt Holdrege
Ascend Communications, Inc.
One Ascend Plaza
1701 Harbor Bay Parkway
Alameda, CA 94502
Voice: (510) 769-6001
EMail: matt@ascend.com
Pyda Srisuresh
Lucent Technologies
4464 Willow Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588-8519
U.S.A.
Voice: (925) 737-2153
EMail: suresh@ra.lucent.com
Holdrege & Srisuresh [Page 11]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/