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

Versions: (draft-zong-p2psip-rpr) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 7264

P2PSIP                                                           N. Zong
Internet-Draft                                                  X. Jiang
Intended status: Standards Track                                 R. Even
Expires: October 10, 2013                            Huawei Technologies
                                                                Y. Zhang
                                                          April 08, 2013


          An extension to RELOAD to support Relay Peer Routing
                        draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-05

Abstract

   This document proposes an optional extension to RELOAD to support
   relay peer routing mode.  RELOAD recommends symmetric recursive
   routing for routing messages.  The new optional extension provides a
   shorter route for responses reducing the overhead on intermediate
   peers and describes the potential use cases where this extension can
   be used.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 10, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must



Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Backgrounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  Relay Peer Routing (RPR)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Scenarios where RPR can be beneficial . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.1.  Managed or closed P2P systems . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.2.  Using bootstrap nodes as relay peers  . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.3.  Wireless scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Relationship between SRR and RPR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  How RPR works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  How SRR and RPR Work Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Comparison on cost of SRR and RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Closed or managed networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Open networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  RPR extensions to RELOAD  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Basic requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Modification to RELOAD message structure  . . . . . . . .   9
       6.2.1.  State-keeping flag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.2.2.  Extensive routing mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.3.  Creating a request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.3.1.  Creating a request for RPR  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.4.  Request and response processing . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.4.1.  Destination peer: receiving a request and sending a
               response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.4.2.  Sending peer: receiving a response  . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.4.3.  Relay peer processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Discovery of relay peers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12



Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  A new RELOAD Forwarding Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix A.  Optional methods to investigate peer connectivity  .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Backgrounds

   RELOAD [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] recommends symmetric recursive routing
   (SRR) for routing messages and describes the extensions that would be
   required to support additional routing algorithms.  Other than SRR,
   two other routing options: direct response routing (DRR) and relay
   peer routing (RPR) are also discussed in Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-
   p2psip-base].  As we show in section 3, RPR is advantageous over SRR
   in some scenarios reducing load (CPU and link bandwidth) on
   intermediate peers.  RPR works better in a network where relay peers
   are provisioned in advance so that relay peers are publicly reachable
   in the P2P system.  In other scenarios, using a combination of RPR
   and SRR together is more likely to bring benefits than if SRR is used
   alone.

   Note that in this document, we focus on RPR routing mode and its
   extensions to RELOAD to produce a standalone solution.  Please refer
   to DRR draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr] for DRR routing mode.

   We first discuss the problem statement in Section 3, then how to
   combine RPR and SRR is presented in Section 4.  In Section 5, we give
   comparison on the cost of SRR and RPR in both managed and open
   networks.  An extension to RELOAD to support RPR is proposed in
   Section 6.  Discovery of relay peers is introduced in Section 7.
   Some optional methods to check peer connectivity are introduced in
   Appendix A.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   We use the terminology and definitions from the Concepts and
   Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP [I-D.ietf-p2psip-concepts] draft
   extensively in this document.  We also use terms defined in NAT



Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


   behavior discovery [RFC5780].  Other terms used in this document are
   defined inline when used and are also defined below for reference.

      Publicly Reachable: A peer is publicly reachable if it can receive
      unsolicited messages from any other peer in the same overlay.
      Note: "publicly" does not mean that the peers must be on the
      public Internet, because the RELOAD protocol may be used in a
      closed system.

      Relay Peer: A type of publicly reachable peer that can receive
      unsolicited messages from all other peers in the overlay and
      forward the responses from destination peers towards the sender of
      the request.

      Relay Peer Routing (RPR): refers to a routing mode in which
      responses to P2PSIP requests are sent by the destination peer to a
      relay peer transport address who will forward the responses
      towards the sending peer.  For simplicity, the abbreviation RPR is
      used instead in the rest of the document.

      Symmetric Recursive Routing (SRR): refers to a routing mode in
      which responses follow the reverse path of the request to get to
      the sending peer.  For simplicity, the abbreviation SRR is used
      instead in the rest of the document.

3.  Introduction

   RELOAD is expected to work under a great number of application
   scenarios.  The situations where RELOAD is to be deployed differ
   greatly.  For instance, some deployments are global, such as a Skype-
   like system intended to provide public service, while others run in
   closed networks of small scale.  SRR works in any situation, but RPR
   may work better in some specific scenarios.

3.1.  Overview

   RELOAD is a simple request-response protocol.  After sending a
   request, a peer waits for a response from a destination peer.  There
   are several ways for the destination peer to send a response back to
   the source peer.  In this section, we will provide detailed
   information on RPR.

   Note that the same illustrative settings can be found in DRR draft
   [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].

3.1.1.  Relay Peer Routing (RPR)





Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


   If peer A knows it is behind a NAT or NATs, and knows one or more
   relay peers with whom they have a prior connections, peer A can try
   RPR.  Assume A is associated with relay peer R.  When sending the
   request, peer A includes information describing peer R transport
   address in the request.  When peer X receives the request, peer X
   sends the response to peer R, which forwards it directly to Peer A on
   the existing connection.  Figure 1 illustrates RPR.  Note that RPR
   also allows a shorter route for responses compared to SRR, which
   means less overhead on intermediate peers.  Establishing a connection
   to the relay with TLS requires multiple round trips.  Please refer to
   Section 5 for cost comparison between SRR and RPR.

   A            B            C             D           X           R
   |  Request   |            |            |            |           |
   |----------->|            |            |            |           |
   |            | Request    |            |            |           |
   |            |----------->|            |            |           |
   |            |            | Request    |            |           |
   |            |            |----------->|            |           |
   |            |            |            | Request    |           |
   |            |            |            |----------->|           |
   |            |            |            |            | Response  |
   |            |            |            |            |---------->|
   |            |            |            |  Response  |           |
   |<-----------+------------+------------+------------+-----------|
   |            |            |            |            |           |

                             Figure 1, RPR


   This technique relies on the relative population of peers such as A
   that require relay peers, and peers such as R that are capable of
   serving as a relay peers.  It also requires a mechanism to enable
   peers to know which peers can be used as their relays.  This
   mechanism may be based on configuration, for example as part of the
   overlay configuration an initial list of relay peers can be supplied.
   Another option is in a response message, the responding peer can
   announce that it can serve as a relay peer.

3.2.  Scenarios where RPR can be beneficial

   In this section, we will list several scenarios where using RPR would
   provide an improved performance.

3.2.1.  Managed or closed P2P systems

   As described in Section 3.2.1 of DRR draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr],
   many P2P systems run in a closed or managed environment so that



Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


   network administrators can better manage their system.  For example,
   the network administrator can deploy several relay peers which are
   publicly reachable in the system and indicate their presence in the
   configuration file.  After learning where these relay peers are,
   peers behind NATs can use RPR with the help from these relay peers.
   Peers MUST also support SRR in case RPR fails.

   Another usage is to install relay peers on the managed network
   boundary allowing external peers to send responses to peers inside
   the managed network.

3.2.2.  Using bootstrap nodes as relay peers

   Bootstrap nodes are typically publicly reachable in a RELOAD
   architecture.  As a result, one possible architecture would be to use
   the bootstrap nodes as relay peers for use with RPR.  A relay peer
   SHOULD be publicly accessible and maintaining a direct connection
   with its client.  As such, bootstrap nodes are well suited to play
   the role of relay peers.

3.2.3.  Wireless scenarios

   In some mobile deployments, using RPR may help reducing radio battery
   usage and bandwidth by the intermediate peers.  The service provider
   may recommend using RPR based on his knowledge of the topology.

4.  Relationship between SRR and RPR

4.1.  How RPR works

   Peers using RPR MUST maintain a connection with their relay peer(s).
   This can be done in the same way as establishing a neighbor
   connection between peers by using the Attach method.

   A requirement for RPR is for the source peer to convey their relay
   peer (or peers) transport address in the request, so the destination
   peer knows where the relay peer are and send the response to a relay
   peer first.  The request SHOULD include also the requesting peer
   information enabling the relay peer to route the response back to the
   right peer.

   Note that being a relay peer does not require that the relay peer has
   more functionality than an ordinary peer.  As discussed later, relay
   peers comply with the same procedure as an ordinary peer to forward
   messages.  The only difference is that there may be a larger traffic
   burden on relay peers.  Relay peers can decide whether to accept a
   new connection based on their current burden.




Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


4.2.  How SRR and RPR Work Together

   RPR is not intended to replace SRR.  It is better to use these two
   modes together to adapt to each peer's specific situation.  Note that
   the informative suggestions on how to transition between SRR and RPR
   (e.g.  compute success rate of RPR, fall back to SRR, etc) are the
   same with that of DRR.  Please refer to DRR draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-
   drr] for more details.  Similarly, the peer can decide whether to try
   RPR based on other information such as configuration file
   information.  If a relay peer is provided by the service provider,
   peers MAY prefer RPR over SRR.

5.  Comparison on cost of SRR and RPR

   The major advantage of the use of RPR is that it reduces the number
   of intermediate peers traversed by the response.  By doing that, it
   reduces the load on those peers' resources like processing and
   communication bandwidth.

5.1.  Closed or managed networks

   As described in Section 3, many P2P systems run in a closed or
   managed environment (e.g.  carrier networks) so that network
   administrators would know that they could safely use RPR.

   The number of hops for a response in SRR and RPR are listed in the
   following table.  Note that the same illustrative settings can be
   found in DRR draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].

     Mode      | Success | No. of Hops | No. of Msgs
     ----------------------------------------------------
     SRR       |  Yes    |     log(N)  |    log(N)
     RPR       |  Yes    |     2       |    2
     RPR(DTLS) |  Yes    |     2       |    7+2

    Table 1, comparison of SRR and RPR in closed networks


   From the above comparison, it is clear that:

   1) In most cases when N > 4 (2^2), RPR uses fewer hops than SRR.
   Using a shorter route means less overhead and resource usage on
   intermediate peers, which is an important consideration for adopting
   RPR in the cases where the resources such as CPU and bandwidth are
   limited, e.g.  the case of mobile, wireless networks.

   2) In the cases when N > 512 (2^9), RPR also uses fewer messages than
   SRR.



Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


   3) In the cases when N < 512, RPR uses more messages than SRR (but
   still uses fewer hops than SRR).  So the consideration on whether
   using RPR or SRR depends on other factors like using less resources
   (bandwidth and processing) from the intermediate peers.  Section 4
   provides use cases where RPR has better chance to work or where the
   intermediary resources considerations are important.

5.2.  Open networks

   In open networks where RPR is not guaranteed to work, RPR can fall
   back to SRR if it fails after trial, as described in Section 4.
   Based on the same settings in Section 5.1, the number of hops, number
   of messages for a response in SRR and RPR are listed in the following
   table.

     Mode      |       Success         | No. of Hops | No. of Msgs
     -----------------------------------------------------------
     SRR       |         Yes           |     logN    |    logN
     RPR       |         Yes           |     2       |    2
               | Fail&Fall back to SRR |     2+logN  |    2+logN
     RPR(DTLS) |         Yes           |     2       |    7+2
               | Fail&Fall back to SRR |     2+logN  |    9+logN

       Table 2, comparison of SRR and RPR in open networks


   From the above comparison, it can be observed that trying to first
   use RPR could still provide an overall number of hops lower than
   directly using SRR.  The detailed analysis is same as DRR case and
   can be found in DRR draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].

6.  RPR extensions to RELOAD

   Adding support for RPR requires extensions to the current RELOAD
   protocol.  In this section, we define the extensions required to the
   protocol, including extensions to message structure and to message
   processing.

6.1.  Basic requirements

   All peers MUST be able to process requests for routing in SRR, and
   MAY support RPR routing requests.









Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


6.2.  Modification to RELOAD message structure

   RELOAD provides an extensible framework to accommodate future
   extensions.  In this section, we define a ForwardingOption structure
   and present a state-keeping flag to support RPR mode.

6.2.1.  State-keeping flag

   flag : 0x08 IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING

   If IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING is set, any peer receiving this message and
   which is not the destination of the message SHOULD forward the
   message with the full via_list and SHOULD NOT maintain any internal
   state.

6.2.2.  Extensive routing mode

   We first define a new type to define the new option,
   extensive_routing_mode:

   The option value is illustrated in the following figure, defining the
   ExtensiveRoutingModeOption structure:

   enum {(0),DRR(1),RPR(2),(255)} RouteMode;
   struct {
           RouteMode               routemode;
           OverlayLinkType         transport;
           IpAddressPort           ipaddressport;
           Destination             destinations<1..2^8-1>;
   } ExtensiveRoutingModeOption;


   Note that DRR value in RouteMode is defined in DRR draft [I-D.ietf-
   p2psip-drr].

   RouteMode: refers to which type of routing mode is indicated to the
   destination peer.

   OverlayLinkType: refers to the transport type which is used to
   deliver responses from the destination peer to the relay peer.

   IpAddressPort: refers to the transport address that the destination
   peer should use to send the response to.  This will be a relay peer
   address for RPR.

   Destination: refers to the relay peer itself.  If the routing mode is
   RPR, then the destination contains two destinations, which are the
   relay peer's Node-ID and the sending peer's Node-ID.



Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


6.3.  Creating a request

6.3.1.  Creating a request for RPR

   When using RPR for a transaction, the sending peer MUST set the
   IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING flag in the ForwardingHeader.  Additionally, the
   peer MUST construct and include a ForwardingOptions structure in the
   ForwardingHeader.  When constructing the ForwardingOption structure,
   the fields MUST be set as follows:

   1) The type MUST be set to extensive_routing_mode.

   2) The ExtensiveRoutingModeOption structure MUST be used for the
   option field within the ForwardingOptions structure.  The fields MUST
   be defined as follows:

   2.1) routemode set to 0x02 (RPR).

   2.2) transport set as appropriate for the relay peer.

   2.3) ipaddressport set to the transport address of the relay peer
   that the sender wishes the message to be relayed through.

   2.4) destination structure MUST contain two values.  The first MUST
   be defined as type node and set with the values for the relay peer.
   The second MUST be defined as type node and set with the sending
   peer's own values.

6.4.  Request and response processing

   This section gives normative text for message processing after RPR is
   introduced.  Here, we only describe the additional procedures for
   supporting RPR.  Please refer to [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] for RELOAD
   base procedures.

6.4.1.  Destination peer: receiving a request and sending a response

   When the destination peer receives a request, it will check the
   options in the forwarding header.  If the destination peer can not
   understand extensive_routing_mode option in the request, it MUST
   attempt using SRR to return an "Error_Unknown_Extension" response
   (defined in Section 6.3.3.1 and Section 14.9 of [I-D.ietf-p2psip-
   base]) to the sending peer.








Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


   If the routing mode is RPR, the destination peer MUST construct a
   destination_list for the response with two entries.  The first MUST
   be set to the relay peer Node-ID from the option in the request and
   the second MUST be the sending peer Node-ID from the option of the
   request.

   In the event that the routing mode is set to RPR and there are not
   exactly two destinations, the destination peer MUST try to send an
   "Error_Unknown_Extension" response (defined in Section 6.3.3.1 and
   Section 14.9 of [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]) to the sending peer using
   SRR.

   After the peer constructs the destination_list for the response, it
   sends the response to the transport address which is indicated in the
   ipaddressport field in the option using the specific transport mode
   in the Forwardingoption.  If the destination peer receives a
   retransmit with SRR preference on the message it is trying to
   response to now, the responding peer SHOULD abort the RPR response
   and use SRR.

6.4.2.  Sending peer: receiving a response

   Upon receiving a response, the peer follows the rules in [I-D.ietf-
   p2psip-base].  If the sender used RPR and does not get a response
   until the timeout, it MAY either resend the message using RPR but
   with a different relay peer (if available), or resend the message
   using SRR.

6.4.3.  Relay peer processing

   Relay peers are designed to forward responses to peers who are not
   publicly reachable.  For the routing of the response, this document
   still uses the destination_list.  The only difference from SRR is
   that the destination_list is not the reverse of the via_list.
   Instead, it is constructed from the forwarding option as described
   below.

   When a relay peer receives a response, it MUST follow the rules in
   [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].  It receives the response, validates the
   message, re-adjust the destination_list and forward the response to
   the next hop in the destination_list based on the connection table.
   There is no added requirement for relay peer.









Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


7.  Discovery of relay peers

   There are several ways to distribute the information about relay
   peers throughout the overlay.  P2P network providers can deploy some
   relay peers and advertise them in the configuration file.  With the
   configuration file at hand, peers can get relay peers to try RPR.
   Another way is to consider relay peer as a service and then some
   service advertisement and discovery mechanism can also be used for
   discovering relay peers, for example, using the same mechanism as
   used in TURN server discovery in base RELOAD [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].
   Another option is to let a peer advertise his capability to be a
   relay in the response to ATTACH or JOIN.

8.  Security Considerations

   As a routing alternative, the security part of RPR conforms to
   section 13.6 of the base draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] which describes
   routing security.  RPR behave like a DRR requesting node towards the
   destination node.  The RPR relay node is not an arbitrary node but
   SHOULD be a trusted one (managed network, bootstrap nodes or
   configured relay) which will make it less of a risk as outlined in
   section13 of the based draft.

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  A new RELOAD Forwarding Option

   A new RELOAD Forwarding Option type is added to the Forwarding Option
   Registry defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].

   Type: 0x02 - extensive_routing_mode

10.  Acknowledgements

   David Bryan has helped extensively with this document, and helped
   provide some of the text, analysis, and ideas contained here.  The
   authors would like to thank Ted Hardie, Narayanan Vidya, Dondeti
   Lakshminath, Bruce Lowekamp, Stephane Bryant, Marc Petit-Huguenin and
   Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano for their constructive comments.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

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





Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


   [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E.,
   Baset, S., and H.  Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery
   (RELOAD) Base Protocol", draft-ietf-p2psip-base-26 (work in
   progress), February 2013.

11.2.  Informative References

   [ChurnDHT] Rhea, S., "Handling Churn in a DHT", Proceedings of the
   USENIX Annual Technical Conference.  Handling Churn in a DHT, June
   2004.

   [DTLS] Modadugu, N., Rescorla, E., "The Design and Implementation of
   Datagram TLS", 11th Network and Distributed System Security Symposium
   (NDSS), 2004.

   [RFC5780] MacDonald, D.  and B.  Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery
   Using STUN", RFC5780, May 2010.

   [RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
   Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", RFC5382, October
   2008.

   [I-D.lowekamp-mmusic-ice-tcp-framework] Lowekamp, B.  and A.  Roach,
   "A Proposal to Define Interactive Connectivity Establishment for the
   Transport Control Protocol (ICE-TCP) as an Extensible Framework",
   draft-lowekamp-mmusic-ice-tcp-framework-00 (work in progress),
   October 2008.

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

   [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr] Zong, N., Jiang, X., Even, R.  and Zhang, Y.,
   "An extension to RELOAD to support Direct Response Routing", draft-
   ietf-p2psip-drr-05, April 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-p2psip-concepts] Bryan, D., Matthews, P., Shim, E., Willis,
   D., and S.  Dawkins, "Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP",
   draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-04 (work in progress), October 2011.

12.  References

Appendix A.  Optional methods to investigate peer connectivity

   This section is for informational purposes only for providing some
   mechanisms that can be used when the configuration information does
   not specify if RPR can be used.  It summarizes some methods which can
   be used for a peer to determine its own network location compared



Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


   with NAT.  These methods may help a peer to decide which routing mode
   it may wish to try.  Note that there is no foolproof way to determine
   if a peer is publically reachable, other than via out-of-band
   mechanisms.  As such, peers using these mechanisms may be able to
   optimize traffic, but must be able to fall back to SRR routing if the
   other routing mechanisms fail.

   For RPR to function correctly, a peer may attempt to determine
   whether it is publicly reachable.  If it is not, RPR may be chosen to
   route the response with the help from relay peers, or the peers
   should fall back to SRR.  NATs and firewalls are two major
   contributors preventing RPR from functioning properly.  There are a
   number of techniques by which a peer can get its reflexive address on
   the public side of the NAT.  After obtaining the reflexive address, a
   peer can perform further tests to learn whether the reflexive address
   is publicly reachable.  If the address appears to be publicly
   reachable, the peers to which the address belongs can be a candidate
   to serve as a relay peer.  Peers which are not publicly reachable may
   still use RPR to shorten the response path with the help from relay
   peers.

   Some conditions are unique in P2PSIP architecture which could be
   leveraged to facilitate the tests.  In P2P overlay network, each peer
   only has partial a view of the whole network, and knows of a few
   peers in the overlay.  P2P routing algorithms can easily deliver a
   request from a sending peer to a peer with whom the sending peer has
   no direct connection.  This makes it easy for a peer to ask other
   peers to send unsolicited messages back to the requester.

   The approaches for a peer to get the addresses needed for the further
   tests, as well as the test for learning whether a peer may be
   publicly reachable is same as the DRR case.  Please refer to DRR
   draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr] for more details.

Authors' Addresses

   Ning Zong
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: zongning@huawei.com


   Xingfeng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: jiang.x.f@huawei.com





Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                P2PSIP relay                    April 2013


   Roni Even
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: roni.even@mail01.huawei.com


   Yunfei Zhang

   Email: hishigh@gmail.com









































Zong, et al.            Expires October 10, 2013               [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/