[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

NSIS Working Group                                             M. Martin
Internet-Draft                                                M. Brunner
Expires: August 11, 2004                                  M. Stiemerling
                                                                     NEC
                                                       February 11, 2004


            SIP NSIS Interactions for NAT/Firewall Traversal
                  draft-martin-nsis-nslp-natfw-sip-00

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 11, 2004.

Copyright Notice

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

Abstract

   The NSIS NAT/FW NSLP provides traversal facilities for other
   application layer protocols. This document describes the interactions
   between SIP and NSIS signaling, to enable two NSIS aware SIP end
   applications to communicate normally through a network of NSIS Aware
   nodes, in a variety of NAT topologies.









Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3

   2. Problem Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

   3. NSIS Signaling for the Caller behind a NAT case  . . . . . . .   6

   4. NSIS Signaling for the Callee behind the NAT case  . . . . . .   8

   5. NSIS Signaling for the Caller and the Callee behind a NAT
      case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

   6. Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

   7. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

      Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

      Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

      Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

      Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . .  18



























Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


1. Introduction

   The NSIS NAT/FW NSLP allows other application layer protocols to
   establish tunnels through aribtrarily complex NAT and Firewall
   network deployments. This means the applications themselves have to
   know NSIS and its abilities, in order to request such tunnels at the
   appropiate time, for the appropiate flows.

   In the case of SIP, several parameters are to be taken into
   consideration. The nature of the SIP signaling flow results in
   precise slots where NSIS signaling should take place. This good
   timing will allow us to minimize the creation of useless pinholes and
   reduce the waiting times, both before and after the receiver has
   accepted the SIP call.

   This draft discusses the necessary interleaving between the SIP and
   NSIS Signaling messages, in a combination of network topologies,
   based on the presence of Middleboxes along the data path.

   The draft is meant as a usage recommendation. As such, it starts with
   a description of the problems, and a case by case solution analysis,
   ended with a comparison of the obtained results and a final flow
   recommendation




























Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


2. Problem Description

   Figure 1 shows a typical network scenario. The Caller, from now on,
   A, sits behind a NAT, with private IP 1, and has NAT as a gateway,
   through the private address 2. The NAT has a public interface, with
   address 3, and B (from now on, the Callee) awaits the call using the
   public IP 4. Note how addresses prefixed with * (*1, *2) denote
   private addresses which can not be reached from the internet unless a
   NAT binding state is installed in the NAT. CA represents the instant
   in which B accepts the call.



   A(*1)            (*2)NAT(3)             B(4)
   |                     |                  |
   | #1 SIP INVITE       |                  |
   +-------------------->|                  |
   |                     |----------------->|
   |                     |                  |
   |                     |   #2 SIP Ringing |
   |                     |<-----------------+
   |<--------------------|                  |
   |                     |                  |
   |                     |        #3 SIP OK |<-CA
   |                     |<-----------------+
   |<--------------------|                  |
   |                     |                  |
   | #4 SIP ACK          |                  |
   +-------------------->|                  |
   |                     |----------------->|
   |                     |                  |
   |                     |                  |
   |=====================|     #5 DATA A->B |
   |                     |=================>|
   |                     |                  |
   |                     |     #6 DATA B->A |
   |                     |   ?<=============|
   |                     |                  |


                  Figure 1: SIP signaling without NSIS

   The message flow is described now using the message numbers in the
   figure. The syntax "(U:V->X:Y): message" denotes a message from
   address U (or box U), port V, towards address X (or box X), port Y,
   with the literarily translated meaning "message"

   #1 SIP INVITE (A:? -> B:SIP): I await data on *1, port x



Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


   This packet contains the information regarding what ports A will
   expect to receive data on. Notice that the packet is being sent to B,
   a public IP, with listening information regarding *1, a private IP
   address. Notice also that A sends a packet from *1 towards 4, but it
   is intercepted by the NAT, which changes the original address *1 for
   3, and remembers the connection to reroute returning packets.

   #2 SIP Ringing (B:SIP -> 2:?): Ringing B's phone
   The ringing simply inplies that there's something SIP aware on B, and
   that it's ringing B's phone. Notice that, from B's point of view, the
   packet came from 2, and not from *1, and so, that's where it will
   send it's reply. Still, that's the IP layer. The SIP layer will still
   think that the adta must be sent to *1. When the packet reaches 2,
   the NAT will remember the binding and change the destination address
   back to *1. It will then forward the packet back to *1.

   #3 SIP OK (B:SIP -> 2:?): Call accepted, I listen on 4:y
   This OK means that the user accepted the call. It also informs A on
   where to send his data: towards 4:y. Note that now 4 is a public
   address, so both the ip header address (4) and the application layer
   address (also 4) are reachable.

   4# SIP ACK (A:? -> B:SIP): All is fine, start transmitting.
   ACK means the ports are accepted and the call can start in the
   slected data ports on both sides.

   5# DATA (A:? -> B:y) and 6# DATA (B:? -> *1:x): Voice,image, video..
   This is the actual data being transmited. It is sent to the
   addresseses specified in packets numer #1 abd #3, which means B is
   trying to connect to a private address in #6. Either #6 will not be
   routable to its destination, or will be sent to the private address,
   but in B's private network. Either way, #5 succeeds but #6 never
   arrives.

   This simple example shows how the presence of a NAT breaks the data
   flow and prevents SIP initiated sessions to succeed. Had the NAT been
   on the receiver's side, we would not have known where to send #1, as
   we would not know B's public address withouth the mediation of a
   proxy. Still, even in the case of using a proxy, SIP does not
   currently cover this situation.











Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


3. NSIS Signaling for the Caller behind a NAT case

   This section shows how the NAT/FW traversal NSLP can be used to
   enable communications in the problem scenario of Section 2.

   The following message flow shows the SIP-NSIS Interactions:


   A(*1)               (*2)NAT(3)             B(4)
   |                     |                  |
   | #1 NSIS RESERVE     |                  |
   +-------------------->|                  |
   | #2  NSIS RETADDR    |                  |
   |<--------------------+                  |
   |                     |                  |
   | #3 SIP INVITE       |                  |
   +-------------------->|                  |
   |                     +----------------->|
   |                     |                  |
   |                     |   #4 SIP Ringing |
   |                     |<-----------------+
   |<--------------------+                  |
   |                     |   #5 NSIS CREATE |<-CA
   |                     |<-----------------+
   |<--------------------+        #6 SIP OK |
   |                     |<-----------------+
   |<--------------------+                  |
   |                     |                  |
   | #7 NSIS Create      |                  |
   |-------------------->|                  |
   |                     |----------------->|
   | #8 SIP ACK          |                  |
   +-------------------->|                  |
   |                     +----------------->|
   |                     |                  |
   |====================>|     #9 DATA A->B |
   |                     |=================>|
   |                     |                  |
   |                     |  #10 DATA NAT<-B |
   | #10 DATA A<-B       |<=================|
   |<====================|                  |
   |                     |                  |


                     Figure 2: Caller behind a NAT

   Because A wants to call B, it first sends a Reserve NSIS message. If
   there is a NAT, as is the case, it will reply with the allocated



Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


   public address, using am NSIS RETADDR message. If there was no NAT, A
   continues its normal operation after a timeout. Normal SIP behavior
   follows, except that the source address in the SIP INVITE packet has
   been changed by the one provided by the NSIS RETADDR packet.

   When B receives the SIP INVITE message, it assumes there might be
   middleboxes in the path, so it tries to open a path by sending an
   NSIS Create message to the address provided in the SIP INVITE which
   is were it will eventually send the voice stream.

   The NSIS CREATE message reaches the NAT and activates the state that
   the NSIS RESERVE previously provided, and the message is forwarded
   inside, in case there where other middleboxes that needed to be open.
   At this stage, B might or might not want to wait for the NSIS SUCCEED
   message, issued by A as a reply to the NSIS CREATE. This message is
   not shown in the figure.

   Once the path has been created, normal SIP behavior follows, and the
   communication succeeds.

   This scheme scales to several middleboxes, since the NSIS RESERVE
   messages reserve states in all the middleboxes until an edge NAT is
   encountered.




























Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


4. NSIS Signaling for the Callee behind the NAT case

   For the callee to be able to receive calls, there has to be a SIP
   Proxy that forwards the signaling messages from the public internet
   into the private network. For this reason, it is a safe assumption
   that A and B will be able to communicate signaling messages
   independently of the scenario.

   With that in mind, the scenario becomes practically symetrical to the
   one with the caller behind a NAT. The message flow follows. Notice
   that SIP messages ignore proxies, since they are routed through the
   proxy, not shown in the diagram.


   A(1)              (2)NAT(*3)            B(*4)
   |                     |                  |
   | #1 SIP INVITE       |                  |
   |---------------------o----------------->|
   |                     |                  |
   |                     |   #2 SIP Ringing |
   |<--------------------o------------------|
   |                     |                  |<-CA
   |                     |                  |
   |                     |  #3 NSIS RESERVE |
   |                     |<-----------------|
   |                     |  #4 NSIS RETADDR |
   |                     |----------------->|
   |                     |   #5 NSIS CREATE |
   |                     |<-----------------+
   |<--------------------+                  |
   |                     |        #6 SIP OK |
   |<--------------------o------------------|
   |                     |                  |
   | #7 NSIS Create      |                  |
   |-------------------->|                  |
   |                     |----------------->|
   |                     |                  |
   | #8 SIP ACK          |                  |
   |<--------------------o------------------|
   |                     |                  |
   | #9 DATA             |                  |
   |====================>|                  |
   |                     |=================>|
   |                     |                  |
   |                     |          #8 DATA |
   |                     |<=================|
   |<====================|                  |
   |                     |                  |



Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


                     Figure 3: Callee behind a NAT


















































Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


5. NSIS Signaling for the Caller and the Callee behind a NAT case

   Even though this case seems similar, or a simmple summation at least,
   of the two previous cases, there are some specific issues that need
   to be looked at carefully. We will start with the message flow, as a
   prior step to the discussion. Again, notice that the SIP messages
   reach A and B thanks to the SIP proxy that has to be installed at the
   edge of the network. This proxy is not shown in the figure.



   A(*1)              (*2)NAT(3)        (4)NAT(5*)          B(*5)
   |                     |                  |                 |
   | #1 NSIS RESERVE     |                  |                 |
   |-------------------->|                  |                 |
   | #2  NSIS RETADDR    |                  |                 |
   |<--------------------|                  |                 |
   |                     |                  |                 |
   | #3 SIP INVITE       |                  |                 |
   |---------------------o------------------o---------------->|
   |                     |                  |                 |
   |                     |   #4 SIP Ringing |                 |
   |<--------------------o------------------o-----------------|
   |                     |                  |                 |<-CA
   |                     |                  | #5 NSIS RESERVE |
   |                     |                  |<----------------|
   |                     |                  | #6 NSIS RETADDR |
   |                     |                  |---------------->|
   |                     |                  | #7 NSIS CREATE  |
   |                     |                  |<----------------|
   |                     |<-----------------|                 |
   |<--------------------|                  |                 |
   |                     |                  |       #9 SIP OK |
   |<--------------------o------------------o-----------------|
   |                     |                  |                 |
   | #10 NSIS Create     |                  |                 |
   |-------------------->|                  |                 |
   |                     |----------------->|                 |
   |                     |                  |---------------->|
   | #11 SIP ACK         |                  |                 |
   |---------------------o------------------o---------------->|
   |                     |                  |                 |
   | #12 DATA            |                  |                 |
   |====================>|                  |                 |
   |                     |=================>|                 |
   |                     |                  |================>|
   |                     |                  |        #13 DATA |
   |                     |                  |<================|



Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


   |                     |<=================|                 |
   |<====================|                  |                 |
   |                     |                  |                 |


                Figure 4: Caller and Callee behind a NAT

   Everything works as expected, but there is a hidden pitfall in the
   above diagram: When A first makes its reservation, it does not know
   where to send that packet. If the objective is to get out of the NAT,
   any public IP would do, but that might lead to route optimization
   problems in certain scenarios

   Let's consider the scenario in Figure 5, where A is in a multihomed
   network that can access the internet through different NATs:


                               +--------------+
                               | Remote Proxy |
                               |    Server    |
                               +--------------+
                                    |    |
                                    |    |
        *******************         |    |      ********************
        * Network A       *         |    |      *        Network B *
        *              +-------+    |    |   +-------+             *
        *        /---->| Proxy |----/    \-->| Proxy |---\         *
    +------+  +---+    +-------+             +-------+  +---+      *
    | NAT2 |  | A |       *                    *        | B |      *
    +------+  +---+    +-------+             +-------+  +---+      *
        *        \=====| NAT1  |<============| NAT1' |===/         *
        *              +-------+             +-------+             *
        *                 *                    *                   *
        *******************                    *********************

      ---- : SIP Signalization
      ==== : NSIS Signaling and Data transfer


                    Figure 5: Optimization scenario

   The figure shows the route that the SIP packets will follow, through
   the SIP proxies, and the optimal route for the DATA arriving at A,
   which is from NAT1' to NAT. This would be the case if the NSIS
   RESERVE message had originally gone out NAT1, because the public
   address would be allocated there.

   On the other hand, if the NSIS RESERVE mesage went out NAT2, the



Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


   communication paths would become:


                               +--------------+
                               | Remote Proxy |
                               |    Server    |
                               +--------------+
                                    |   |
                                    |   |
         ********************       |   |       *********************
         *                  *       |   |       *                   *
         *               +-------+  |   |    +-------+              *
         *         /-----| Proxy |--/   \--->| Proxy |---\          *
     +------+   +---+    +-------+           +-------+  +---+  +-------+
     | NAT2 |---| A |       *                  *        | B |  | NAT2' |
     +------+   +---+    +-------+           +-------+  +---+  +-------+
      =  *         \=====| NAT1  |       ====| NAT1' |===/          *
      =  *               +-------+       =   +-------+              *
      =  *                  *            =     *                    *
      =  ********************            =     **********************
      =                                  =
      ====================================

    ---- : SIP Signalization
    ==== : NSIS Signaling and Data transfer


                      Figure 6: Sub optimal route

   This comes to show that the "Blind shot" that A performs when first
   reserving the address has a severe impact on the choosen path in
   multihomed scenarios, and might lead to longer or less efficient
   routes.

   If we assume that routers are able to calculate the most optimal
   routes, then the solution is in sending the NSIS RESERVE message on
   the path to B, but that is unkown at that moment. Still, we do have
   the SIP Proxy of B. Note that this would be the first Via Header in
   the SIP OK message, since there is no way we can communicate with B
   if there is not a SIP Proxy in its network.

   Thus, by pointing the NSIS RESERVE message towards B, we have a
   pretty good assurance that the optimal path (as calculated by the
   routers) will be chosen.







Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


6. Conclusions

   This draft proposes the mechanisms required to use SIP with NSIS, in
   order to enable the communication through scenarios with obstructing
   Middleboxes.

   Although further analisys is still required to fine tune this
   interactions, a first valuable result arises: the use of the SIP
   Proxy as a target for NSIS RESERVE messages is very likely to aid in
   the coice of the optimal route in the multihomed scenario.









































Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


7. Security Considerations

   The NAT/Firewall traversal NSLP dels with very security sensitive
   issues, and a good security infrastructure is required. An evaluation
   of the possible threads can be found in [1] and a securit proposal is
   available at [3].













































Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


Normative References

   [1]  Tschofenig, H. and D. Kroeselberg, "Security Threats for NSIS",
        DRAFT draft-ietf-nsis-threats-01.txt, January 2003.















































Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


Informative References

   [2]  Tschofenig, H., Buechli, M., Van den Bosch, S. and H.
        Schulzrinne, "NSIS Authentication, Authorization and Accounting
        Issues", draft-tschofenig-nsis-aaa-issues-01 (work in progress),
        March 2003.

   [3]  Stiemerling, M., Martin, M. and C. Aoun, "A NAT/Firewall NSLP
        security infrastructure", DRAFT
        draft-martin-nsis-nslp-natfw-security-00.txt, October 2003.

   [4]  Stiemerling, M., Tschofenig, H., Martin, M. and C. Aoun, "A NAT/
        Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP)", DRAFT
        draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-00.txt, October 2003.


Authors' Addresses

   Miquel Martin
   Network Laboratories, NEC Europe Ltd.
   Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
   Heidelberg  69115
   Germany

   Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 16
   EMail: miquel.martin@netlab.nec.de
   URI:


   Marcus Brunner
   Network Laboratories, NEC Europe Ltd.
   Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
   Heidelberg  69115
   Germany

   Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29
   EMail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de
   URI:   http://www.brubers.org/marcus













Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


   Martin Stiemerling
   Network Laboratories, NEC Europe Ltd.
   Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
   Heidelberg  69115
   Germany

   Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 13
   EMail: stiemerling@netlab.nec.de
   URI:










































Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

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

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


Full Copyright Statement

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

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

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

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



Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft         NAT/FW NSLP SIP Operations          February 2004


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


Acknowledgment

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











































Martin, et al.          Expires August 11, 2004                [Page 19]


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