draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-10.txt   draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-11.txt 
P2PSIP N. Zong, Ed. P2PSIP N. Zong, Ed.
Internet-Draft X. Jiang Internet-Draft X. Jiang
Intended status: Standards Track R. Even Intended status: Standards Track R. Even
Expires: March 17, 2014 Huawei Technologies Expires: April 24, 2014 Huawei Technologies
Y. Zhang Y. Zhang
CoolPad CoolPad
September 13, 2013 October 21, 2013
An extension to RELOAD to support Relay Peer Routing An Extension to REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol to
draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-10 Support Relay Peer Routing
draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-11
Abstract Abstract
This document proposes an optional extension to RELOAD to support This document proposes an optional extension to REsource LOcation And
relay peer routing mode. RELOAD recommends symmetric recursive Discovery (RELOAD) protocol to support relay peer routing mode.
routing for routing messages. The new optional extension provides a RELOAD recommends symmetric recursive routing for routing messages.
shorter route for responses reducing the overhead on intermediate The new optional extension provides a shorter route for responses
peers and describes the potential use cases where this extension can reducing the overhead on intermediate peers and describes the
be used. potential use cases where this extension can be used.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 17, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Relay Peer Routing (RPR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Scenarios where RPR can be used . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Scenarios where RPR can be beneficial . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Managed or closed P2P systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.1. Managed or closed P2P systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Using bootstrap nodes as relay peers . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.2. Using bootstrap nodes as relay peers . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Wireless scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.3. Wireless scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Relationship between SRR and RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Relationship between SRR and RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. How RPR works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. How RPR works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. How SRR and RPR work together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. How SRR and RPR work together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Comparison on cost of SRR and RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Comparison on cost of SRR and RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Closed or managed networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Closed or managed networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Open networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Open networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. RPR extensions to RELOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. RPR extensions to RELOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Basic requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Basic requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Modification to RELOAD message structure . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Modification to RELOAD message structure . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.1. State-keeping flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2.1. State-keeping flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.2. Extensive routing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2.2. Extensive routing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Creating a request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.3. Creating a request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3.1. Creating a request for RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.3.1. Creating a request for RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4. Request and response processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.4. Request and response processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.4.1. Destination peer: receiving a request and sending a 6.4.1. Destination peer: receiving a request and sending a
response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.4.2. Sending peer: receiving a response . . . . . . . . . 11 6.4.2. Sending peer: receiving a response . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4.3. Relay peer processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.4.3. Relay peer processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Overlay configuration extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Overlay configuration extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Discovery of relay peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Discovery of relay peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. A new RELOAD Forwarding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.1. A new RELOAD Forwarding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Optional methods to investigate peer connectivity . 13 Appendix A. Optional methods to investigate peer connectivity . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RELOAD [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] recommends symmetric recursive routing REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol [I-D.ietf-p2psip-
(SRR) for routing messages and describes the extensions that would be base] recommends symmetric recursive routing (SRR) for routing
required to support additional routing algorithms. Other than SRR, messages and describes the extensions that would be required to
two other routing options: direct response routing (DRR) and relay support additional routing algorithms. Other than SRR, two other
peer routing (RPR) are also discussed in Appendix A of [I-D.ietf- routing options: direct response routing (DRR) and relay peer routing
p2psip-base]. As we show in section 3, RPR is advantageous over SRR (RPR) are also discussed in Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. As
in some scenarios reducing load (CPU and link bandwidth) on we show in section 3, RPR is advantageous over SRR in some scenarios
intermediate peers. RPR works better in a network where relay peers reducing load (CPU and link bandwidth) on intermediate peers. RPR
are provisioned in advance so that relay peers are publicly reachable works better in a network where relay peers are provisioned in
in the P2P system. In other scenarios, using a combination of RPR advance so that relay peers are publicly reachable in the P2P system.
and SRR together is more likely to bring benefits than if SRR is used In other scenarios, using a combination of RPR and SRR together is
alone. more likely to bring benefits than if SRR is used alone.
Note that in this document, we focus on RPR routing mode and its Note that in this document, we focus on RPR routing mode and its
extensions to RELOAD to produce a standalone solution. Please refer extensions to RELOAD to produce a standalone solution. Please refer
to DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr] for DRR routing mode. to DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr] for DRR routing mode.
We first discuss the problem statement in Section 3, then how to 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 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 comparison on the cost of SRR and RPR in both managed and open
networks. An extension to RELOAD to support RPR is proposed in networks. An extension to RELOAD to support RPR is proposed in
Section 6. Discovery of relay peers is introduced in Section 7. Section 6. Discovery of relay peers is introduced in Section 7.
skipping to change at page 3, line 48 skipping to change at page 3, line 48
We use the terminology and definitions from the RELOAD base draft We use the terminology and definitions from the RELOAD base draft
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] extensively in this document. We also use [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] extensively in this document. We also use
terms defined in NAT behavior discovery [RFC5780]. Other terms used terms defined in NAT behavior discovery [RFC5780]. Other terms used
in this document are defined inline when used and are also defined in this document are defined inline when used and are also defined
below for reference. below for reference.
Publicly Reachable: A peer is publicly reachable if it can receive Publicly Reachable: A peer is publicly reachable if it can receive
unsolicited messages from any other peer in the same overlay. unsolicited messages from any other peer in the same overlay.
Note: "publicly" does not mean that the peers must be on the Note: "publicly" does not mean that the peers must be on the
public Internet, because the RELOAD protocol may be used in a public Internet, because the RELOAD protocol may be used in a
closed system. closed network.
Relay Peer: A type of publicly reachable peer that can receive Relay Peer: A type of publicly reachable peer that can receive
unsolicited messages from all other peers in the overlay and unsolicited messages from all other peers in the overlay and
forward the responses from destination peers towards the sender of forward the responses from destination peers towards the sender of
the request. the request.
Relay Peer Routing (RPR): refers to a routing mode in which Relay Peer Routing (RPR): refers to a routing mode in which
responses to P2PSIP requests are sent by the destination peer to a responses to P2PSIP requests are sent by the destination peer to a
relay peer transport address who will forward the responses relay peer transport address who will forward the responses
towards the sending peer. For simplicity, the abbreviation RPR is towards the sending peer. For simplicity, the abbreviation RPR is
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
like system intended to provide public service, while others run in like system intended to provide public service, while others run in
closed networks of small scale. SRR works in any situation, but RPR closed networks of small scale. SRR works in any situation, but RPR
may work better in some specific scenarios. may work better in some specific scenarios.
3.1. RPR 3.1. RPR
RELOAD is a simple request-response protocol. After sending a RELOAD is a simple request-response protocol. After sending a
request, a peer waits for a response from a destination peer. There 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 are several ways for the destination peer to send a response back to
the source peer. In this section, we will provide detailed the source peer. In this section, we will provide detailed
information on RPR. information on RPR. Note that the same illustrative settings can be
found in DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].
Note that the same illustrative settings can be found in DRR document
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].
3.1.1. Relay Peer Routing (RPR)
If peer A knows it is behind a NAT or NATs, and knows one or more 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 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 RPR. Assume A is associated with relay peer R. When sending the
request, peer A includes information describing peer R transport request, peer A includes information describing peer R transport
address in the request. When peer X receives the request, peer X 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 sends the response to peer R, which forwards it directly to Peer A on
the existing connection. Figure 1 illustrates RPR. Note that RPR the existing connection. Figure 1 illustrates RPR. Note that RPR
also allows a shorter route for responses compared to SRR, which also allows a shorter route for responses compared to SRR, which
means less overhead on intermediate peers. Establishing a connection means less overhead on intermediate peers. Establishing a connection
to the relay with TLS requires multiple round trips. Please refer to to the relay with TLS requires multiple round trips. Please refer to
skipping to change at page 5, line 42 skipping to change at page 5, line 28
This technique relies on the relative population of peers such as A 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 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 serving as a relay peers. It also requires a mechanism to enable
peers to know which peers can be used as their relays. This peers to know which peers can be used as their relays. This
mechanism may be based on configuration, for example as part of the mechanism may be based on configuration, for example as part of the
overlay configuration an initial list of relay peers can be supplied. overlay configuration an initial list of relay peers can be supplied.
Another option is in a response message, the responding peer can Another option is in a response message, the responding peer can
announce that it can serve as a relay peer. announce that it can serve as a relay peer.
3.2. Scenarios where RPR can be beneficial 3.2. Scenarios where RPR can be used
In this section, we will list several scenarios where using RPR would In this section, we will list several scenarios where using RPR would
provide an improved performance. provide an improved performance.
3.2.1. Managed or closed P2P systems 3.2.1. Managed or closed P2P systems
As described in Section 3.2.1 of DRR draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr], 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 many P2P systems run in a closed or managed environment so that
network administrators can better manage their system. For example, network administrators can better manage their system. For example,
the network administrator can deploy several relay peers which are the network administrator can deploy several relay peers which are
skipping to change at page 6, line 28 skipping to change at page 6, line 15
architecture. As a result, one possible architecture would be to use architecture. As a result, one possible architecture would be to use
the bootstrap nodes as relay peers for use with RPR. A relay peer the bootstrap nodes as relay peers for use with RPR. A relay peer
SHOULD be publicly accessible and maintain a direct connection with SHOULD be publicly accessible and maintain a direct connection with
its client. As such, bootstrap nodes are well suited to play the its client. As such, bootstrap nodes are well suited to play the
role of relay peers. role of relay peers.
3.2.3. Wireless scenarios 3.2.3. Wireless scenarios
In some mobile deployments, using RPR may help reducing radio battery In some mobile deployments, using RPR may help reducing radio battery
usage and bandwidth by the intermediate peers. The service provider usage and bandwidth by the intermediate peers. The service provider
may recommend using RPR based on his knowledge of the topology. may recommend using RPR based on his/her knowledge of the topology.
4. Relationship between SRR and RPR 4. Relationship between SRR and RPR
4.1. How RPR works 4.1. How RPR works
Peers using RPR MUST maintain a connection with their relay peer(s). Peers using RPR MUST maintain a connection with their relay peer(s).
This can be done in the same way as establishing a neighbor This can be done in the same way as establishing a neighbor
connection between peers by using the Attach method. connection between peers by using the Attach method.
A requirement for RPR is for the source peer to convey their relay A requirement for RPR is for the source peer to convey their relay
skipping to change at page 7, line 28 skipping to change at page 7, line 15
5. Comparison on cost of SRR and RPR 5. Comparison on cost of SRR and RPR
The major advantage of the use of RPR is that it reduces the number 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 of intermediate peers traversed by the response. By doing that, it
reduces the load on those peers' resources like processing and reduces the load on those peers' resources like processing and
communication bandwidth. communication bandwidth.
5.1. Closed or managed networks 5.1. Closed or managed networks
As described in Section 3, many P2P systems run in a closed or As described in Section 3, many P2P systems run in a closed or
managed environment (e.g. carrier networks) so that network managed environment (e.g., carrier networks) so that network
administrators would know that they could safely use RPR. administrators would know that they could safely use RPR.
The number of hops for a response in SRR and RPR are listed in the 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 following table. Note that the same illustrative settings can be
found in DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr]. found in DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].
Mode | Success | No. of Hops | No. of Msgs Mode | Success | No. of Hops | No. of Msgs
---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
SRR | Yes | log(N) | log(N) SRR | Yes | log(N) | log(N)
RPR | Yes | 2 | 2 RPR | Yes | 2 | 2
RPR(DTLS) | Yes | 2 | 7+2 RPR(DTLS) | Yes | 2 | 7+2
Table 1. Comparison of SRR and RPR in closed networks Table 1. Comparison of SRR and RPR in closed networks
From the above comparison, it is clear that: From the above comparison, it is clear that:
1) In most cases when N > 4 (2^2), RPR uses fewer hops than SRR. 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 Using a shorter route means less overhead and resource usage on
intermediate peers, which is an important consideration for adopting intermediate peers, which is an important consideration for adopting
RPR in the cases where the resources such as CPU and bandwidth are RPR in the cases where the resources such as CPU and bandwidth are
limited, e.g. the case of mobile, wireless networks. limited, e.g., the case of mobile, wireless networks.
2) In the cases when N > 512 (2^9), RPR also uses fewer messages than 2) In the cases when N > 512 (2^9), RPR also uses fewer messages than
SRR. SRR.
3) In the cases when N < 512, RPR uses more messages than SRR (but 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 still uses fewer hops than SRR). So the consideration on whether
using RPR or SRR depends on other factors like using less resources using RPR or SRR depends on other factors like using less resources
(bandwidth and processing) from the intermediate peers. Section 4 (bandwidth and processing) from the intermediate peers. Section 4
provides use cases where RPR has better chance to work or where the provides use cases where RPR has better chance to work or where the
intermediary resources considerations are important. intermediary resources considerations are important.
5.2. Open networks 5.2. Open networks
In open networks where RPR is not guaranteed to work, RPR can fall In open networks (e.g., Internet) where RPR is not guaranteed to
back to SRR if it fails after trial, as described in Section 4. work, RPR can fall back to SRR if it fails after trial, as described
Based on the same settings of Section 5.1, the number of hops, number in Section 4. Based on the same settings of Section 5.1, the number
of messages for a response in SRR and RPR are listed in the following of hops, number of messages for a response in SRR and RPR are listed
table. in the following table.
Mode | Success | No. of Hops | No. of Msgs Mode | Success | No. of Hops | No. of Msgs
----------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
SRR | Yes | log(N) | log(N) SRR | Yes | log(N) | log(N)
RPR | Yes | 2 | 2 RPR | Yes | 2 | 2
| Fail&Fall back to SRR | 2+log(N)| 2+log(N) | Fail&Fall back to SRR | 2+log(N)| 2+log(N)
RPR(DTLS) | Yes | 2 | 7+2 RPR(DTLS) | Yes | 2 | 7+2
| Fail&Fall back to SRR | 2+log(N)| 9+log(N) | Fail&Fall back to SRR | 2+log(N)| 9+log(N)
Table 2. Comparison of SRR and RPR in open networks Table 2. Comparison of SRR and RPR in open networks
skipping to change at page 9, line 22 skipping to change at page 9, line 10
If IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING is set, any peer receiving this message and If IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING is set, any peer receiving this message and
which is not the destination of the message SHOULD forward the which is not the destination of the message SHOULD forward the
message with the full via_list and SHOULD NOT maintain any internal message with the full via_list and SHOULD NOT maintain any internal
state. state.
6.2.2. Extensive routing mode 6.2.2. Extensive routing mode
We first define a new type to define the new option, We first define a new type to define the new option,
extensive_routing_mode: extensive_routing_mode:
The option value is illustrated in the following figure, defining the The option value is illustrated as below, defining the
ExtensiveRoutingModeOption structure: ExtensiveRoutingModeOption structure:
enum {(0),DRR(1),RPR(2),(255)} RouteMode; enum {(0),DRR(1),RPR(2),(255)} RouteMode;
struct { struct {
RouteMode routemode; RouteMode routemode;
OverlayLinkType transport; OverlayLinkType transport;
IpAddressPort ipaddressport; IpAddressPort ipaddressport;
Destination destinations<1..2^8-1>; Destination destinations<1..2^8-1>;
} ExtensiveRoutingModeOption; } ExtensiveRoutingModeOption;
skipping to change at page 12, line 8 skipping to change at page 11, line 34
When a relay peer receives a response, it MUST follow the rules in When a relay peer receives a response, it MUST follow the rules in
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. It receives the response, validates the [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. It receives the response, validates the
message, re-adjust the destination_list and forward the response to message, re-adjust the destination_list and forward the response to
the next hop in the destination_list based on the connection table. the next hop in the destination_list based on the connection table.
There is no added requirement for relay peer. There is no added requirement for relay peer.
7. Overlay configuration extension 7. Overlay configuration extension
This document uses the new RELOAD overlay configuration element, This document uses the new RELOAD overlay configuration element,
"route-mode", inside each "configuration" element, as defined in DRR "route-mode", inside each "configuration" element, as defined in
document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr]. Section 7 of the DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].
8. Discovery of relay peers 8. Discovery of relay peers
There are several ways to distribute the information about relay There are several ways to distribute the information about relay
peers throughout the overlay. P2P network providers can deploy some peers throughout the overlay. P2P network providers can deploy some
relay peers and advertise them in the configuration file. With the relay peers and advertise them in the configuration file. With the
configuration file at hand, peers can get relay peers to try RPR. 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 Another way is to consider relay peer as a service and then some
service advertisement and discovery mechanism can also be used for service advertisement and discovery mechanism can also be used for
discovering relay peers, for example, using the same mechanism as discovering relay peers, for example, using the same mechanism as
used in TURN server discovery in base RELOAD [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. 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 Another option is to let a peer advertise its capability to be a
relay in the response to ATTACH or JOIN. relay in the response to ATTACH or JOIN.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
The normative security recommendations of Section 13 of base draft
As a routing alternative, the security part of RPR conforms to [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] are applicable to this document. As a routing
section 13.6 of the base draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] which describes alternative, the security part of RPR conforms to Section 13.6 of the
routing security. RPR behave like a DRR requesting node towards the base draft which describes routing security. RPR behaves like a DRR
destination node. The RPR relay node is not an arbitrary node but requesting node towards the destination node. The RPR relay node is
SHOULD be a trusted one (managed network, bootstrap nodes or not an arbitrary node but SHOULD be a trusted one (managed network,
configured relay) which will make it less of a risk as outlined in bootstrap nodes or configured relay) which will make it less of a
section13 of the based draft. risk as outlined in section13 of the based draft.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
10.1. A new RELOAD Forwarding Option 10.1. A new RELOAD Forwarding Option
A new RELOAD Forwarding Option type is added to the Forwarding Option A new RELOAD Forwarding Option type is added to the Forwarding Option
Registry defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. Registry defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].
Type: 0x02 - extensive_routing_mode Type: 0x02 - extensive_routing_mode
11. Acknowledgements 11. Acknowledgments
David Bryan has helped extensively with this document, and helped David Bryan has helped extensively with this document, and helped
provide some of the text, analysis, and ideas contained here. The provide some of the text, analysis, and ideas contained here. The
authors would like to thank Ted Hardie, Narayanan Vidya, Dondeti authors would like to thank Ted Hardie, Narayanan Vidya, Dondeti
Lakshminath, Bruce Lowekamp, Stephane Bryant, Marc Petit-Huguenin and Lakshminath, Bruce Lowekamp, Stephane Bryant, Marc Petit-Huguenin and
Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano for their constructive comments. Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano for their constructive comments.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E.,
Baset, S., and H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery Baset, S., and H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery
(RELOAD) Base Protocol", draft-ietf-p2psip-base-26 (work in (RELOAD) Base Protocol", draft-ietf-p2psip-base-26 (work in
progress), February 2013. progress), February 2013.
skipping to change at page 13, line 14 skipping to change at page 12, line 42
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E.,
Baset, S., and H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery Baset, S., and H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery
(RELOAD) Base Protocol", draft-ietf-p2psip-base-26 (work in (RELOAD) Base Protocol", draft-ietf-p2psip-base-26 (work in
progress), February 2013. progress), February 2013.
[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-11 (work in progress), October 2013.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[RFC5780] MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery [RFC5780] MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery
Using STUN", RFC5780, May 2010. Using STUN", RFC5780, May 2010.
[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-10 (work in progress), September 2013.
[RFC3424] Daigle, L., "IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-Address [RFC3424] Daigle, L., "IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-Address
Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation", RFC3424, November Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation", RFC3424, November
2002. 2002.
13. References 13. References
Appendix A. Optional methods to investigate peer connectivity Appendix A. Optional methods to investigate peer connectivity
This section is for informational purposes only for providing some This section is for informational purposes only for providing some
mechanisms that can be used when the configuration information does mechanisms that can be used when the configuration information does
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
69 lines changed or deleted 67 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/