tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Glossaries     Architecture     IMS     UICC    |    search     info

RFC 6314

Informational
Pages: 60
Top     in Index     Prev     Next
in Group Index     Prev in Group     Next in Group     Group: ~sip-sdp

NAT Traversal Practices for Client-Server SIP

Part 1 of 4, p. 1 to 12
None       Next RFC Part

 


Top       ToC       Page 1 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        C. Boulton
Request for Comments: 6314                               NS-Technologies
Category: Informational                                     J. Rosenberg
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                    Skype
                                                            G. Camarillo
                                                                Ericsson
                                                                F. Audet
                                                                   Skype
                                                               July 2011


             NAT Traversal Practices for Client-Server SIP

Abstract

   Traversal of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the sessions
   it establishes through Network Address Translators (NATs) is a
   complex problem.  Currently, there are many deployment scenarios and
   traversal mechanisms for media traffic.  This document provides
   concrete recommendations and a unified method for NAT traversal as
   well as documents corresponding flows.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6314.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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

Page 2 
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Solution Technology Outline Description  . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  SIP Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.1.  Symmetric Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.2.  Client-Initiated Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Media Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.1.  Symmetric RTP/RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.2.  RTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2.3.  STUN/TURN/ICE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  NAT Traversal Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1.  Basic NAT SIP Signaling Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.1.1.  Registration (Registrar/Edge Proxy Co-Located) . . . . 12
       5.1.2.  Registration(Registrar/Edge Proxy Not Co-Located)  . . 16
       5.1.3.  Initiating a Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       5.1.4.  Receiving an Invitation to a Session . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.2.  Basic NAT Media Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       5.2.1.  Endpoint-Independent NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       5.2.2.  Address/Port-Dependent NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
   6.  IPv4-IPv6 Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
     6.1.  IPv4-IPv6 Transition for SIP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . 57
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Top      ToC       Page 3 
1.  Introduction

   NAT (Network Address Translator) traversal has long been identified
   as a complex problem when considered in the context of the Session
   Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] and its associated media such as
   the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550].  The problem is
   exacerbated by the variety of NATs that are available in the
   marketplace today and the large number of potential deployment
   scenarios.  Details of different NATs behavior can be found in "NAT
   Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP" [RFC4787].

   The IETF has been active on many specifications for the traversal of
   NATs, including Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) [RFC5389],
   Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245], symmetric
   response [RFC3581], symmetric RTP [RFC4961], Traversal Using Relay
   NAT (TURN) [RFC5766], SIP Outbound [RFC5626], the Session Description
   Protocol (SDP) attribute for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) [RFC3605],
   "Multiplexing RTP Data and Control Packets on a Single Port"
   [RFC5761], and others.  Each of these represents a part of the
   solution, but none of them gives the overall context for how the NAT
   traversal problem is decomposed and solved through this collection of
   specifications.  This document serves to meet that need.  It should
   be noted that this document intentionally does not invoke 'Best
   Current Practice' machinery as defined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].

   The document is split into two distinct sections as follows:

   o  Section 4 provides a definitive set of best common practices to
      demonstrate the traversal of SIP and its associated media through
      NAT devices.

   o  Section 5 provides non-normative examples representing
      interactions of SIP using various NAT type deployments.

   The document does not propose any new functionality but does draw on
   existing solutions for both core SIP signaling and media traversal
   (as defined in Section 4).

   The best practices described in this document are for traditional
   "client-server"-style SIP.  This term refers to the traditional use
   of the SIP protocol where User Agents talk to a series of
   intermediaries on a path to connect to a remote User Agent.  It seems
   likely that other groups using SIP, for example, peer-to-peer SIP
   (P2PSIP), will recommend these same practices between a P2PSIP client
   and a P2PSIP peer, but will recommend different practices for use
   between peers in a peer-to-peer network.

Top      ToC       Page 4 
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].

   It should be noted that the use of the term 'Endpoint-Independent
   NAT' in this document refers to a NAT that is both Endpoint-
   Independent Filtering and Endpoint-Independent Mapping per the
   definitions in RFC 4787 [RFC4787].

3.  Problem Statement

   The traversal of SIP through NATs can be split into two categories
   that both require attention: the core SIP signaling and associated
   media traversal.  This document assumes NATs that do not contain SIP-
   aware Application Layer Gateways (ALGs), which makes much of the
   issues discussed in the document not applicable.  ALGs have
   limitations (as per RFC 4787 [RFC4787] Section 7, RFC 3424 [RFC3424],
   and [RFC5245] Section 18.6), and experience shows they can have an
   adverse impact on the functionality of SIP.  This includes problems
   such as requiring the media and signaling to traverse the same device
   and not working with encrypted signaling and/or payload.

   The use of non-TURN-based media intermediaries is not considered in
   this document.  More information can be obtained from [RFC5853] and
   [MIDDLEBOXES].

   The core SIP signaling has a number of issues when traversing through
   NATs.

   SIP response routing over UDP as defined in RFC 3261 [RFC3261]
   without extensions causes the response to be delivered to the source
   IP address specified in the topmost Via header, or the 'received'
   parameter of the topmost 'Via' header.  The port is extracted from
   the SIP 'Via' header to complete the IP address/port combination for
   returning the SIP response.  While the destination for the response
   is correct, the port contained in the SIP 'Via' header represents the
   listening port of the originating client and not the port
   representing the open pinhole on the NAT.  This results in responses
   being sent back to the NAT but to a port that is likely not open for
   SIP traffic.  The SIP response will then be dropped at the NAT.  This
   is illustrated in Figure 1, which depicts a SIP response being
   returned to port 5060.

Top      ToC       Page 5 
     Private                       NAT                         Public
     Network                        |                          Network
                                    |
                                    |
     --------     SIP Request       |open port 10923           --------
    |        |-------------------->--->-----------------------|        |
    |        |                      |                         |        |
    | Client |                      |port 5060   SIP Response | Proxy  |
    |        |                      x<------------------------|        |
    |        |                      |                         |        |
     --------                       |                          --------
                                    |
                                    |
                                    |

                         Figure 1: Failed Response

   Secondly, there are two cases where new requests reuse existing
   connections.  The first is when using a reliable, connection-oriented
   transport protocol such as TCP, SIP has an inherent mechanism that
   results in SIP responses reusing the connection that was created/used
   for the corresponding transactional request.  The SIP protocol does
   not provide a mechanism that allows new requests generated in the
   reverse direction of the originating client to use, for example, the
   existing TCP connection created between the client and the server
   during registration.  This results in the registered contact address
   not being bound to the "connection" in the case of TCP.  Requests are
   then blocked at the NAT, as illustrated in Figure 2.  The second case
   is when using an unreliable transport protocol such as UDP where
   external NAT mappings need to be reused to reach a SIP entity on the
   private side of the network.

     Private                       NAT                         Public
     Network                        |                          Network
                                    |
                                    |
     -------- (UAC 8023)    REGISTER/Response       (UAS 5060) --------
    |        |-------------------->---<-----------------------|        |
    |        |                      |                         |        |
    | Client |                      |5060  INVITE   (UAC 8015)| Proxy  |
    |        |                      x<------------------------|        |
    |        |                      |                         |        |
     --------                       |                          --------
                                    |
                                    |
                                    |

                         Figure 2: Failed Request

Top      ToC       Page 6 
   In Figure 2, the original REGISTER request is sent from the client on
   port 8023 and received by the proxy on port 5060, establishing a
   connection and opening a pinhole in the NAT.  The generation of a new
   request from the proxy results in a request destined for the
   registered entity (contact IP address) that is not reachable from the
   public network.  This results in the new SIP request attempting to
   create a connection to a private network address.  This problem would
   be solved if the original connection were reused.  While this problem
   has been discussed in the context of connection-oriented protocols
   such as TCP, the problem exists for SIP signaling using any transport
   protocol.  The impact of connection reuse of connection-oriented
   transports (TCP, TLS, etc.) is discussed in more detail in the
   connection reuse specification [RFC5923].  The approach proposed for
   this problem in Section 4 of this document is relevant for all SIP
   signaling in conjunction with connection reuse, regardless of the
   transport protocol.

   NAT policy can dictate that connections should be closed after a
   period of inactivity.  This period of inactivity may vary from a
   number of seconds to hours.  SIP signaling cannot be relied upon to
   keep connections alive for the following two reasons.  Firstly, SIP
   entities can sometimes have no signaling traffic for long periods of
   time, which has the potential to exceed the inactivity timer, and
   this can lead to problems where endpoints are not available to
   receive incoming requests as the connection has been closed.
   Secondly, if a low inactivity timer is specified, SIP signaling is
   not appropriate as a keep-alive mechanism as it has the potential to
   add a large amount of traffic to the network, which uses up valuable
   resources and also requires processing at a SIP stack, which is also
   a waste of processing resources.

   Media associated with SIP calls also has problems traversing NAT.
   RTP [RFC3550] runs over UDP and is one of the most common media
   transport types used in SIP signaling.  Negotiation of RTP occurs
   with a SIP session establishment using the Session Description
   Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] and a SIP offer/answer exchange [RFC3264].
   During a SIP offer/answer exchange, an IP address and port
   combination are specified by each client in a session as a means of
   receiving media such as RTP.  The problem arises when a client
   advertises its address to receive media and it exists in a private
   network that is not accessible from outside the NAT.  Figure 3
   illustrates this problem.

Top      ToC       Page 7 
                 NAT             Public Network           NAT
                  |                                        |
                  |                                        |
                  |                                        |
     --------     |            SIP Signaling Session       |   --------
    |        |---------------------->Proxy<-------------------|        |
    |        |    |                                        |  |        |
    | Client |    |                                        |  | Client |
    |   A    |>=====>RTP>==Unknown Address==>X             |  |   B    |
    |        |    |             X<==Unknown Address==<RTP<===<|        |
     --------     |                                        |   --------
                  |                                        |
                  |                                        |
                  |                                        |

                          Figure 3: Failed Media

   The connection addresses of the clients behind the NATs will
   nominally contain a private IPv4 address that is not routable across
   the public Internet.  Exacerbating matters even more would be the
   tendency of Client A to send media to a destination address it
   received in the signaling confirmation message -- an address that may
   actually correspond to a host within the private network who is
   suddenly faced with incoming RTP packets (likewise, Client B may send
   media to a host within its private network who did not solicit these
   packets).  Finally, to complicate the problem even further, a number
   of different NAT topologies with different default behaviors
   increases the difficulty of arriving at a unified approach.  This
   problem exists for all media transport protocols that might be NATted
   (e.g., TCP, UDP, the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), the
   Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)).

   In general, the problems associated with NAT traversal can be
   categorized as follows.

   For signaling:

   o  Responses do not reuse the NAT mapping and filtering entries
      created by the request.

   o  Inbound requests are filtered out by the NAT because there is no
      long-term connection between the client and the proxy.

Top      ToC       Page 8 
   For media:

   o  Each endpoint has a variety of addresses that can be used to reach
      it (e.g., native interface address, public NATted address).  In
      different situations, a different pair of (local endpoint, remote
      endpoint) addresses should be used, and it is not clear when to
      use which pair.

   o  Many NATs filter inbound packets if the local endpoint has not
      recently sent an outbound packet to the sender.

   o  Classic RTCP usage is to run RTCP on the next highest port.
      However, NATs do not necessarily preserve port adjacency.

   o  Classic RTP and RTCP usage is to use different 5-tuples for
      traffic in each direction.  Though not really a problem, doing
      this through NATs is more work than using the same 5-tuple in both
      directions.

4.  Solution Technology Outline Description

   As mentioned previously, the traversal of SIP through existing NATs
   can be divided into two discrete problem areas: getting the SIP
   signaling across NATs and enabling media as specified by SDP in a SIP
   offer/answer exchange to flow between endpoints.

4.1.  SIP Signaling

   SIP signaling has two areas that result in transactional failure when
   traversing through NATs, as described in Section 3 of this document.
   The remaining sub-sections describe appropriate solutions that result
   in SIP signaling traversal through NATs, regardless of transport
   protocol.  It is advised that SIP-compliant entities follow the
   guidelines presented in this section to enable traversal of SIP
   signaling through NATs.

4.1.1.  Symmetric Response

   As described in Section 3 of this document, when using an unreliable
   transport protocol such as UDP, SIP responses are sent to the IP
   address and port combination contained in the SIP 'Via' header field
   (or default port for the appropriate transport protocol if not
   present).  Figure 4 illustrates the response traversal through the
   open pinhole using Symmetric techniques defined in RFC 3581
   [RFC3581].

Top      ToC       Page 9 
     Private                        NAT                       Public
     Network                         |                        Network
                                     |
                                     |
     --------                        |                        --------
    |        |                       |                       |        |
    |        |send request---------------------------------->|        |
    | Client |<---------------------------------send response|  SIP   |
    |   A    |                       |                       | Proxy  |
    |        |                       |                       |        |
     --------                        |                        --------
                                     |
                                     |
                                     |

                       Figure 4: Symmetric Response

   The outgoing request from Client A opens a pinhole in the NAT.  The
   SIP Proxy would normally respond to the port available in the SIP
   'Via' header, as illustrated in Figure 1.  The SIP Proxy honors the
   'rport' parameter in the SIP 'Via' header and routes the response to
   the port from which it was sent.  The exact functionality for this
   method of response traversal is called 'Symmetric Response', and the
   details are documented in RFC 3581 [RFC3581].  Additional
   requirements are imposed on SIP entities in RFC 3581 [RFC3581] such
   as listening and sending SIP requests/responses from the same port.

4.1.2.  Client-Initiated Connections

   The second problem with SIP signaling, as defined in Section 3 and
   illustrated in Figure 2, is to allow incoming requests to be properly
   routed.

   Guidelines for devices such as User Agents that can only generate
   outbound connections through NATs are documented in "Managing Client-
   Initiated Connections in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)"
   [RFC5626].  The document provides techniques that use a unique User
   Agent instance identifier (instance-id) in association with a flow
   identifier (reg-id).  The combination of the two identifiers provides
   a key to a particular connection (both UDP and TCP) that is stored in
   association with registration bindings.  On receiving an incoming
   request to a SIP Address-Of-Record (AOR), a proxy/registrar routes to
   the associated flow created by the registration and thus a route
   through NATs.  It also provides a keep-alive mechanism for clients to
   keep NAT bindings alive.  This is achieved by multiplexing a ping-
   pong mechanism over the SIP signaling connection (STUN for UDP and

Top      ToC       Page 10 
   CRLF/operating system keepalive for reliable transports like TCP).
   Usage of [RFC5626] is RECOMMENDED.  This mechanism is not transport
   specific and should be used for any transport protocol.

   Even if the SIP Outbound mechanism is not used, clients generating
   SIP requests SHOULD use the same IP address and port (i.e., socket)
   for both transmission and receipt of SIP messages.  Doing so allows
   for the vast majority of industry provided solutions to properly
   function (e.g., NAT traversal that is Session Border Control (SBC)
   hosted).  Deployments should also consider the mechanism described in
   the Connection Reuse [RFC5923] specification for routing
   bidirectional messages securely between trusted SIP Proxy servers.

4.2.  Media Traversal

   The issues of media traversal through NATs is not straightforward and
   requires the combination of a number of traversal methodologies.  The
   technologies outlined in the remainder of this section provide the
   required solution set.

4.2.1.  Symmetric RTP/RTCP

   The primary problem identified in Section 3 of this document is that
   internal IP address/port combinations cannot be reached from the
   public side of NATs.  In the case of media such as RTP, this will
   result in no audio traversing NATs (as illustrated in Figure 3).  To
   overcome this problem, a technique called 'Symmetric RTP/RTCP'
   [RFC4961] can be used.  This involves a SIP endpoint both sending and
   receiving RTP/RTCP traffic from the same IP address/port combination.
   When operating behind a NAT and using the 'latching' technique
   described in [MIDDLEBOXES], SIP User Agents MUST implement Symmetric
   RTP/RTCP.  This allows traversal of RTP across the NAT.

4.2.2.  RTCP

   Normal practice when selecting a port for defining RTP Control
   Protocol (RTCP) [RFC3550] is for consecutive-order numbering (i.e.,
   select an incremented port for RTCP from that used for RTP).  This
   assumption causes RTCP traffic to break when traversing certain types
   of NATs due to various reasons (e.g., already allocated port,
   randomized port allocation).  To combat this problem, a specific
   address and port need to be specified in the SDP rather than relying
   on such assumptions.  RFC 3605 [RFC3605] defines an SDP attribute
   that is included to explicitly specify transport connection
   information for RTCP so a separate, explicit NAT binding can be set
   up for the purpose.  The address details can be obtained using any
   appropriate method including those detailed in this section (e.g.,
   STUN, TURN, ICE).

Top      ToC       Page 11 
   A further enhancement to RFC 3605 [RFC3605] is defined in [RFC5761],
   which specifies 'muxing' both RTP and RTCP on the same IP/PORT
   combination.

4.2.3.  STUN/TURN/ICE

   ICE, STUN, and TURN are a suite of 3 inter-related protocols that
   combine to provide a complete media traversal solution for NATs.  The
   following sections provide details of each component part.

4.2.3.1.  STUN

   Session Traversal Utilities for NAT or STUN is defined in RFC 5389>
   [RFC5389].  STUN is a lightweight tool kit and protocol that provides
   details of the external IP address/port combination used by the NAT
   device to represent the internal entity on the public facing side of
   NATs.  On learning of such an external representation, a client can
   use it accordingly as the connection address in SDP to provide NAT
   traversal.  Using terminology defined in "NAT Behavioral Requirements
   for Unicast UDP" [RFC4787], STUN does work with Endpoint-Independent
   Mapping but does not work with either Address-Dependent Mapping or
   Address and Port-Dependent Mapping type NATs.  Using STUN with either
   of the previous two NAT mappings to probe for the external IP
   address/port representation will provide a different result to that
   required for traversal by an alternative SIP entity.  The IP address/
   port combination deduced for the STUN server would be blocked for RTP
   packets from the remote SIP User Agent.

   As mentioned in Section 4.1.2, STUN is also used as a client-to-
   server keep-alive mechanism to refresh NAT bindings.

4.2.3.2.  TURN

   As described in Section 4.2.3.1, the STUN protocol does not work for
   UDP traversal through certain identified NAT mappings.  'Traversal
   Using Relays around NAT' is a usage of the STUN protocol for deriving
   (from a TURN server) an address that will be used to relay packets
   towards a client.  TURN provides an external address (globally
   routable) at a TURN server that will act as a media relay that
   attempts to allow traffic to reach the associated internal address.
   The full details of the TURN specification are defined in [RFC5766].
   A TURN service will almost always provide media traffic to a SIP
   entity, but it is RECOMMENDED that this method would only be used as
   a last resort and not as a general mechanism for NAT traversal.  This
   is because using TURN has high performance costs when relaying media
   traffic and can lead to unwanted latency.

Top      ToC       Page 12 
4.2.3.3.  ICE

   Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) is the RECOMMENDED
   method for traversal of existing NATs if Symmetric RTP and media
   latching are not sufficient.  ICE is a methodology for using existing
   technologies such as STUN, TURN, and any other protocol compliant
   with Unilateral Self-Address Fixing (NSAF) [RFC3424] to provide a
   unified solution.  This is achieved by obtaining as many
   representative IP address/port combinations as possible using
   technologies such as STUN/TURN (note: an ICE endpoint can also use
   other mechanisms (e.g., the NAT Port Mapping Protocol [NAT-PMP],
   Universal Plug and Play Internet Gateway Device [UPnP-IGD]) to learn
   public IP addresses and ports, and populate a=candidate lines with
   that information).  Once the addresses are accumulated, they are all
   included in the SDP exchange in a new media attribute called
   'candidate'.  Each candidate SDP attribute entry has detailed
   connection information including a media address, priority, and
   transport protocol.  The appropriate IP address/port combinations are
   used in the order specified by the priority.  A client compliant to
   the ICE specification will then locally run STUN servers on all
   addresses being advertised using ICE.  Each instance will undertake
   connectivity checks to ensure that a client can successfully receive
   media on the advertised address.  Only connections that pass the
   relevant connectivity checks are used for media exchange.  The full
   details of the ICE methodology are in [RFC5245].



(page 12 continued on part 2)

Next RFC Part