Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Rosenberg Request for Comments: 6544 jdrosen.net Category: Standards Track A. Keranen ISSN: 2070-1721 Ericsson B. B. Lowekamp Skype A. B. Roach Tekelec March 2012 TCP Candidates with Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
AbstractInteractive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) defines a mechanism for NAT traversal for multimedia communication protocols based on the offer/answer model of session negotiation. ICE works by providing a set of candidate transport addresses for each media stream, which are then validated with peer-to-peer connectivity checks based on Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN). ICE provides a general framework for describing candidates but only defines UDP-based media streams. This specification extends ICE to TCP-based media, including the ability to offer a mix of TCP and UDP-based candidates for a single stream. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. 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). Further information on Internet Standards is available in 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/rfc6544.
Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2012 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 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.
1. Introduction ....................................................4 2. Terminology .....................................................5 3. Overview of Operation ...........................................5 4. Sending the Initial Offer .......................................7 4.1. Gathering Candidates .......................................7 4.2. Prioritization .............................................8 4.3. Choosing Default Candidates ...............................10 4.4. Lite Implementation Requirements ..........................10 4.5. Encoding the SDP ..........................................11 5. Candidate Collection Techniques ................................12 5.1. Host Candidates ...........................................12 5.2. Server Reflexive Candidates ...............................13 5.3. NAT-Assisted Candidates ...................................13 5.4. UDP-Tunneled Candidates ...................................14 5.5. Relayed Candidates ........................................15 6. Receiving the Initial Offer and Answer .........................15 6.1. Considerations with Two Lite Agents .......................16 6.2. Forming the Check Lists ...................................16 7. Connectivity Checks ............................................17 7.1. STUN Client Procedures ....................................17 7.2. STUN Server Procedures ....................................18 8. Concluding ICE Processing ......................................18 9. Subsequent Offer/Answer Exchanges ..............................18 9.1. Updated Offer .............................................18 9.2. ICE Restarts ..............................................19 10. Media Handling ................................................19 10.1. Sending Media ............................................19 10.2. Receiving Media ..........................................20 11. Connection Management .........................................20 11.1. Connections Formed during Connectivity Checks ............20 11.2. Connections Formed for Gathering Candidates ..............21 12. Security Considerations .......................................22 13. IANA Considerations ...........................................23 14. Acknowledgements ..............................................23 15. References ....................................................23 15.1. Normative References .....................................23 15.2. Informative References ...................................24 Appendix A. Limitations of ICE TCP ...............................26 Appendix B. Implementation Considerations for BSD Sockets ........27 Appendix C. SDP Examples .........................................28
RFC5245] defines a mechanism for NAT traversal for multimedia communication protocols based on the offer/answer model [RFC3264] of session negotiation. ICE works by providing a set of candidate transport addresses for each media stream, which are then validated with peer-to-peer connectivity checks based on Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) [RFC5389]. However, ICE only defines procedures for UDP-based transport protocols. There are many reasons why ICE support for TCP is important. First, there are media protocols that only run over TCP. Such protocols are used, for example, for screen sharing and instant messaging [RFC4975]. For these protocols to work in the presence of NAT, unless they define their own NAT traversal mechanisms, ICE support for TCP is needed. In addition, RTP can also run over TCP [RFC4571]. Typically, it is preferable to run RTP over UDP, and not TCP. However, in a variety of network environments, overly restrictive NAT and firewall devices prevent UDP-based communications altogether, but general TCP-based communications are permitted. In such environments, sending RTP over TCP, and thus establishing the media session, may be preferable to having it fail altogether. With this specification, agents can gather UDP and TCP candidates for a media stream, list the UDP ones with higher priority, and then only use the TCP-based ones if the UDP ones fail. This provides a fallback mechanism that allows multimedia communications to be highly reliable. The usage of RTP over TCP is particularly useful when combined with Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) [RFC5766]. In this case, one of the agents would connect to its TURN server using TCP and obtain a TCP-based relayed candidate. It would offer this to its peer agent as a candidate. The other agent would initiate a TCP connection towards the TURN server. When that connection is established, media can flow over the connections, through the TURN server. The benefit of this usage is that it only requires the agents to make outbound TCP connections to a server on the public network. This kind of operation is broadly interoperable through NAT and firewall devices. Since it is a goal of ICE and this extension to provide highly reliable communications that "just work" in as broad a set of network deployments as possible, this use case is particularly important. This specification extends ICE by defining its usage with TCP candidates. It also defines how ICE can be used with RTP and Secure RTP (SRTP) to provide both TCP and UDP candidates. This specification does so by following the outline of ICE itself and
calling out the additions and changes to support TCP candidates in ICE. The base behavior of ICE [RFC5245] remains unchanged except for the extensions in this document that define the usage of ICE with TCP candidates. It should be noted that since TCP NAT traversal is more complicated than with UDP, ICE TCP is not generally as efficient as UDP-based ICE. Discussion about this topic can be found in Appendix A. RFC2119]. This document uses the same terminology as ICE (see Section 3 of [RFC5245]). Section 5). Connections to servers used for relayed and server reflexive candidates are kept open during ICE processing. When encoding these candidates into offers and answers, the type of the candidate is signaled. In the case of active candidates, both IP address and port are present, but the port is meaningless (it is there only for making encoding of active candidates consistent with the other candidate types and is ignored by the peer). As a consequence, active candidates do not need to be physically allocated
at the time of address gathering. Rather, the physical allocations, which occur as a consequence of a connection attempt, occur at the time of the connectivity checks. When the candidates are paired together, active candidates are always paired with passive, and S-O candidates with each other. When a connectivity check is to be made on a candidate pair, each agent determines whether it is to make a connection attempt for this pair. The actual process of generating connectivity checks, managing the state of the check list, and updating the Valid list works identically for TCP as it does for UDP. ICE requires an agent to demultiplex STUN and application-layer traffic, since they appear on the same port. This demultiplexing is described in [RFC5245] and is done using the magic cookie and other fields of the message. Stream-oriented transports introduce another wrinkle, since they require a way to frame the connection so that the application and STUN packets can be extracted in order to differentiate STUN packets from application-layer traffic. For this reason, TCP media streams utilizing ICE use the basic framing provided in RFC 4571 [RFC4571], even if the application layer protocol is not RTP. When Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) is used, they are also run over the RFC 4571 framing shim, while STUN runs outside of the (D)TLS connection. The resulting ICE TCP protocol stack is shown in Figure 1, with (D)TLS on the left side and without it on the right side. +----------+ | | | App | +----------+----------+ +----------+----------+ | | | | | | | STUN | (D)TLS | | STUN | App | +----------+----------+ +----------+----------+ | | | | | RFC 4571 | | RFC 4571 | +---------------------+ +---------------------+ | | | | | TCP | | TCP | +---------------------+ +---------------------+ | | | | | IP | | IP | +---------------------+ +---------------------+ Figure 1: ICE TCP Stack with and without (D)TLS
The implication of this is that, for any media stream protected by (D)TLS, the agent will first run ICE procedures, exchanging STUN messages. Then, once ICE completes, (D)TLS procedures begin. ICE and (D)TLS are thus "peers" in the protocol stack. The STUN messages are not sent over the (D)TLS connection, even ones sent for the purposes of keepalive in the middle of the media session.
where mobility and user control are possible, a multiplicity of techniques is essential for reliability. First, agents SHOULD obtain host candidates as described in Section 5.1. Then, each agent SHOULD "obtain" (allocate a placeholder for) an active host candidate for each component of each TCP-capable media stream on each interface that the host has. The agent does not yet have to actually allocate a port for these candidates, but they are used for the creation of the check lists. The agent SHOULD then obtain server reflexive, NAT-assisted, and/or UDP-tunneled candidates (see Section 5.2, Section 5.3, and Section 5.4). The mechanisms for establishing these candidates and the number of candidates to collect vary from technique to technique. These considerations are discussed in the relevant sections. Next, agents SHOULD obtain passive (and possibly S-O) relayed candidates for each component as described in Section 5.5. Each agent SHOULD also allocate a placeholder for an active relayed candidate for each component of each TCP-capable media stream. It is highly RECOMMENDED that a host obtains at least one set of host candidates and one set of relayed candidates. Obtaining additional candidates will increase the chance of successfully creating a direct connection. Once the candidates have been obtained, the agent MUST keep the TCP connections open until ICE processing has completed. See Appendix B for important implementation guidelines. If a media stream is UDP-based (such as RTP), an agent MAY use an additional host TCP candidate to request a UDP-based candidate from a TURN server (or some other relay with similar functionality). Usage of such UDP candidates follows the procedures defined in ICE for UDP candidates. Like its UDP counterparts, TCP-based STUN transactions are paced out at one every Ta milliseconds (see Section 16 of [RFC5245]). This pacing refers strictly to STUN transactions (both Binding and Allocate requests). If performance of the transaction requires establishment of a TCP connection, then the connection gets opened when the transaction is performed.
candidates. This allows ICE to use the lower latency UDP connectivity if it exists but fallback to TCP if UDP doesn't work. In Section 22.214.171.124 of [RFC5245], a recommended formula for UDP ICE candidate prioritization is defined. For TCP candidates, the same formula and candidate type preferences SHOULD be used, and the RECOMMENDED type preferences for the new candidate types defined in this document (see Section 5) are 105 for NAT-assisted candidates and 75 for UDP-tunneled candidates. When both UDP and TCP candidates are offered for the same media stream, and one transport protocol should be preferred over the other, the type preferences for the preferred transport protocol candidates SHOULD be increased and/or the type preferences for the other transport protocol candidates SHOULD be decreased. How much the values should be increased or decreased depends on whether it is more important to choose a certain transport protocol or a certain candidate type. If the candidate type is more important (e.g., even if UDP is preferred, TCP host candidates are preferred over UDP server reflexive candidates) changing type preference values by one for the other transport protocol candidates is enough. On the other hand, if the transport protocol is more important (e.g., any UDP candidate is preferred over any TCP candidate), all the preferred transport protocol candidates SHOULD have type preference higher than the other transport protocol candidates. However, it is RECOMMENDED that the relayed candidates are still preferred lower than the other candidate types. For RTP-based media streams, it is RECOMMENDED that UDP candidates are preferred over TCP candidates. With TCP candidates, the local preference part of the recommended priority formula is updated to also include the directionality (active, passive, or simultaneous-open) of the TCP connection. The RECOMMENDED local preference is then defined as: local preference = (2^13) * direction-pref + other-pref The direction-pref MUST be between 0 and 7 (both inclusive), with 7 being the most preferred. The other-pref MUST be between 0 and 8191 (both inclusive), with 8191 being the most preferred. It is RECOMMENDED that the host, UDP-tunneled, and relayed TCP candidates have the direction-pref assigned as follows: 6 for active, 4 for passive, and 2 for S-O. For the NAT-assisted and server reflexive candidates, the RECOMMENDED values are: 6 for S-O, 4 for active, and 2 for passive. The preference priorities listed here are simply recommendations that try to strike a balance between success probability and the resulting path's efficiency. Depending on the scenario where ICE TCP is used,
different values may be appropriate. For example, if the overhead of a UDP tunnel is not an issue, those candidates should be prioritized higher since they are likely to have a high success probability. Also, simultaneous-open is prioritized higher than active and passive candidates for NAT-assisted and server reflexive candidates since if TCP S-O is supported by the operating systems of both endpoints, it should work at least as well as the active-passive approach. If an implementation is uncertain whether S-O candidates are supported, it may be reasonable to prioritize them lower. For host, UDP-tunneled, and relayed candidates, the S-O candidates are prioritized lower than active and passive since active-passive candidates should work with them at least as well as the S-O candidates. If any two candidates have the same type-preference and direction- pref, they MUST have a unique other-pref. With this specification, this usually only happens with multi-homed hosts, in which case other-pref is the preference for the particular IP address from which the candidate was obtained. When there is only a single IP address, this value SHOULD be set to the maximum allowed value (8191). RFC4145] "setup" attribute value "active". This increases the chances for a successful NAT traversal even without ICE support if the agent is behind a NAT and the peer is not. For the same reason, for a lite agent, it is RECOMMENDED to use a passive candidate and "setup" attribute value "passive" in the offer. Appendix A of [RFC5245] (i.e., it will always have a public, globally unique IP address), it MAY use the lite mode of ICE for TCP candidates. In the lite mode, for TCP candidates, only passive host candidates are gathered, unless active candidates are needed as the default candidates. Otherwise, the procedures described for lite mode in [RFC5245] also apply to TCP candidates. If UDP and TCP candidates are mixed in a media stream, the mode (lite or full) applies to both UDP and TCP candidates.
RFC5245]. However, the transport protocol (i.e., value of the transport-extension token defined in [RFC5245], Section 15.1) is set to "TCP" and the connection type (active, passive, or S-O) is encoded using a new extension attribute. With TCP candidates, the candidate-attribute syntax with Augmented BNF [RFC5234] is then: candidate-attribute = "candidate" ":" foundation SP component-id SP "TCP" SP priority SP connection-address SP port SP cand-type [SP rel-addr] [SP rel-port] SP tcp-type-ext *(SP extension-att-name SP extension-att-value) tcp-type-ext = "tcptype" SP tcp-type tcp-type = "active" / "passive" / "so" The connection-address encoded into the candidate-attribute for active candidates MUST be set to the IP address that will be used for the attempt, but the port(s) MUST be set to 9 (i.e., Discard). For active relayed candidates, the value for connection-address MUST be identical to the IP address of a passive or simultaneous-open candidate from the same relay server. If the default candidate is TCP-based, the agent MUST include the a=setup and a=connection attributes from RFC 4145 [RFC4145], following the procedures defined there as if ICE were not in use. In particular, if an agent is the answerer, the a=setup attribute MUST meet the constraints in RFC 4145 based on the value in the offer. If an agent is utilizing SRTP [RFC3711], it MAY include a mix of UDP and TCP candidates. If ICE selects a TCP candidate pair, it is RECOMMENDED that the agent still utilizes SRTP but runs it over the connection established by ICE. The alternative, RTP over TLS, breaks RTP header compression and on-path RTP analysis tools and hence SHOULD be avoided. In the case of DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764], the directionality attributes (a=setup) are utilized strictly to determine the direction of the DTLS handshake. Directionality of the TCP connection establishment is determined by the ICE attributes and procedures defined here.
If an agent is securing non-RTP media over TCP/TLS, the SDP MUST be constructed as described in RFC 4572 [RFC4572]. The directionality attributes (a=setup) are utilized strictly to determine the direction of the TLS handshake. Directionality of the TCP connection establishment is determined by the ICE attributes and procedures defined here. Examples of SDP offers and answers with ICE TCP extensions are shown in Appendix C. Section 5.1) considered mandatory. Implementors are encouraged to implement as many of the following techniques from the following list as is practical, as well as to explore additional NAT-traversal techniques beyond those discussed in this document. However, to get a reasonable success ratio, one SHOULD implement at least one relayed technique (e.g., TURN) and one technique for discovering the address given for the host by a NAT (e.g., STUN). To increase the success probability with the techniques described below and to aid with transition to IPv6, implementors SHOULD take particular care to include both IPv4 and IPv6 candidates as part of the process of gathering candidates. If the local network or host does not support IPv6 addressing, then clients SHOULD make use of other techniques, e.g., TURN-IPv6 [RFC6156], Teredo [RFC4380], or SOCKS IPv4-IPv6 gatewaying [RFC3089], for obtaining IPv6 candidates. While implementations SHOULD support as many techniques as feasible, they SHOULD also consider which of them to use if multiple options are available. Since different candidates are paired with each other, offering a large number of candidates results in a large check list and potentially long-lasting connectivity checks. For example, using multiple NAT-assisted techniques with the same NAT usually results only in redundant candidates. Similarly, using just one of the multiple UDP tunneling or relaying techniques is often enough.
behind different NATs, host candidates usually fail to work. On the other hand, if there are no NATs between the hosts, host candidates are the most efficient method since they require no additional NAT traversal protocols or techniques. For each TCP-capable media stream the agent wishes to use (including ones like RTP that can be either UDP or TCP), the agent SHOULD obtain two host candidates (each on a different port) for each component of the media stream on each interface that the host has -- one for the simultaneous-open and one for the passive candidate. If an agent is not capable of acting in one of these modes, it would omit those candidates. RFC5382] and also on whether the NATs and hosts support the TCP simultaneous-open technique. Obtaining server reflexive passive candidates may require initiating connections from host's passive candidates; see Appendix B for implementation details on this. Server reflexive active candidates can be derived from passive or S-O candidates by using the same IP addresses and interfaces as those candidates. It is useful to obtain both server reflexive passive and S-O candidates since which one actually works better depends on the hosts and NATs. Furthermore, some techniques (e.g., TURN relaying) require knowing the IP address of the peer's active candidates beforehand, so active server reflexive candidates are needed for such techniques to function properly. A widely used protocol for obtaining server reflexive candidates is STUN. Its TCP-specific behavior is described in [RFC5389], Section 7.2.2.
that is in the same subnet as the host and thus often fail in scenarios with multiple layers of NATs. These techniques also rely on NATs supporting the specific protocols and allowing the users to modify their behavior. These candidates are encoded in the ICE offer and answer like the server reflexive candidates, but they (commonly) use a higher priority (as described in Section 4.2) and hence are tested before the server reflexive candidates. Currently, the Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) forum's Internet Gateway Device (IGD) protocol [UPnP-IGD] and the NAT Port Mapping Protocol (PMP) [NAT-PMP] are widely supported NAT-assisted techniques. Other known protocols include Port Control Protocol (PCP) [PCP-BASE], SOCKS [RFC1928], Realm Specific IP (RSIP) [RFC3103], and Simple Middlebox Configuration (SIMCO) [RFC4540]. Also, the Middlebox Communications (MIDCOM) MIB [RFC5190] defines a mechanism based on the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) for controlling NATs. RFC4380] [RFC6081] provides automatic UDP tunneling and IPv6 interworking. The Teredo UDP tunnel is visible to the host application as an IPv6 address; thus, Teredo candidates are encoded as IPv6 addresses.
RFC6062] and SOCKS [RFC1928] (which can also be used for IPv4- IPv6 gatewaying [RFC3089]). It is also possible to use a Secure SHell (SSH) [RFC4251] tunnel as a relayed candidate if a suitable server is available and the server permits this. Section 5.1 of [RFC5245]) and agent roles are determined. Candidates are gathered using the techniques described in Section 5 and prioritized as described in Section 4.2. Default candidates are selected taking into account the considerations in Section 4.3. The SDP answer is encoded as in Section 4.3 of [RFC5245], with the exception of TCP candidates whose encoding is described in Section 4.5. When the offerer receives the initial answer, it also verifies ICE support and determines its role. If both of the agents use lite implementations, the offerer takes the controlling role and uses the procedures defined in [RFC4145] to select the most preferred candidate pair with a new offer.
RFC4145] in the new offer, the offerer MAY initiate the TCP connection on the selected pair in parallel with the new offer to speed up the connection establishment. Consequently, the answerer MUST still accept incoming TCP connections to any of the passive candidates it listed in the answer, from any of the IP addresses the offerer listed in the initial offer. If the answerer receives the new offer matching the candidate pair where a connection was already created in parallel with the new offer, it MUST accept the offer and respond to it while keeping the already-created connection. If the connection that was created in parallel with the new offer does not match the candidate pair in the new offer, the connection MUST be closed, and ICE restart SHOULD be performed. Since the connection endpoints are not authenticated using the connectivity checks in the scenario where both agents use the lite mode, unless media-level security (e.g., TLS) is used, it is RECOMMENDED to use the full mode instead. For more lite versus full implementation considerations, see Appendix A of [RFC5245].
Section 5.8 of [RFC5245], based on the priority order. RFC4571] for the duration this connection remains open. The STUN Binding requests and responses are sent on top of this shim, so that the length field defined in RFC 4571 precedes each STUN message. If TLS or DTLS-SRTP is to be utilized for the media session, the TLS or DTLS-SRTP handshakes will take place on top of this shim as well. However, they only start once ICE processing has completed. In essence, the TLS or DTLS-SRTP handshakes are considered a part of the media protocol. STUN is never run within the TLS or DTLS-SRTP session as part of the ICE procedures. If the TCP connection cannot be established, the check is considered to have failed, and a full-mode agent MUST update the pair state to Failed in the check list. See Section 7.2.2 of [RFC5389] for more details on STUN over TCP. Once the connection is established, client procedures are identical to those for UDP candidates. However, retransmissions of the STUN connectivity check messages are not needed, since TCP takes care of reliable delivery of the messages. Note also that STUN responses received on an active TCP candidate will typically produce a peer reflexive candidate. If the response to the first connectivity check on the established TCP connection is something other than a STUN
message, the remote candidate address apparently was not one of the peer's addresses, and the agent SHOULD close the connection and consider all pairs with that remote candidate as failed. RFC4571] for the lifetime of this connection. Due to this framing, the agent will receive data in discrete frames. Each frame could be media (such as RTP or SRTP), TLS, DTLS, or STUN packets. The STUN packets are extracted as described in Section 10.2. Once the connection is established, STUN server procedures are identical to those for UDP candidates. Note that STUN requests received on a passive TCP candidate will typically produce a remote peer reflexive candidate. RFC4145] are used to signal that an existing connection should be used, rather than opening a new one.
RFC 4571 MUST be used when sending media. For media streams that are not RTP-based and do not normally use RFC 4571, the agent treats the media stream as a byte stream and assumes that it has its own framing of some sort, if needed. It then takes an arbitrary number of bytes from the byte stream and places that as a payload in the RFC 4571 frames, including the length. Next, the sender checks to see if the resulting set of bytes would be viewed as a STUN packet based on the rules in Sections 6 and 8 of [RFC5389]. This includes a check on the most significant two bits, the magic cookie, the length, and the fingerprint. If, based on those rules, the bytes would be viewed as a STUN message, the sender MUST utilize a different number of bytes so that the length checks will fail. Though it is normally highly unlikely that an arbitrary number of bytes from a byte stream would resemble a STUN packet based on all of the checks, it can happen if the content of the application stream happens to contain a STUN message (for example, a file transfer of logs from a client that includes STUN messages). If TLS or DTLS-SRTP procedures are being utilized to protect the media stream, those procedures start at the point that media is permitted to flow, as defined in the ICE specification [RFC5245]. The TLS or DTLS-SRTP handshakes occur on top of the RFC 4571 shim and
are considered part of the media stream for the purposes of this specification. RFC 4571 MUST be used when receiving media. For media streams that are not RTP-based and do not normally use RFC 4571, the agent extracts the payload of each RFC 4571 frame and determines if it is a STUN or an application-layer data based on the procedures in ICE [RFC5245]. If media is being protected with DTLS- SRTP, the DTLS, RTP, and STUN packets are demultiplexed as described in Section 5.1.2 of [RFC5764]. For non-STUN data, the agent appends this to the ongoing byte stream collected from the frames. It then parses the byte stream as if it had been directly received over the TCP connection. This allows for ICE TCP to work without regard to the framing mechanism used by the application-layer protocol.
If an agent needs to send media on the selected candidate pair, and its TCP connection has closed, then: o If the agent's local candidate is tcp-active or tcp-so, it MUST reopen a connection to the remote candidate of the selected pair. o If the agent's local candidate is tcp-passive, the agent MUST await an incoming connection request and, consequently, will not be able to send media until it has been opened. If the TCP connection is established, the framing of RFC 4571 is utilized. If the agent opened the connection and is a full agent, it MUST send a STUN connectivity check. An agent MUST be prepared to receive a connectivity check over a connection it opened or accepted (note that this is true in general; ICE requires that an agent be prepared to receive a connectivity check at any time, even after ICE processing completes). If a full agent receives a connectivity check after re-establishment of the connection, it MUST generate a triggered check over that connection in response if it has not already sent a check. Once an agent has sent a check and received a successful response, the connection is considered Valid, and media can be sent (which includes a TLS or DTLS-SRTP session resumption or restart). If the TCP connection cannot be established, the controlling agent SHOULD restart ICE for this media stream. This will happen in cases where one of the agents is behind a NAT with connection-dependent mapping properties [RFC5382].
stream. Similar measures SHOULD apply also to other types of relaying servers. RFC3261]. This shared secret, in turn, is protected by that protocol exchange. In the case of SIP, the usage of the SIP Secure (SIPS) [RFC3261] mechanism is RECOMMENDED. When this is done, an attacker, even if it knows or can guess the port on which an agent is listening for incoming TCP connections, will not be able to open a connection and send media to the agent. If the rendezvous protocol exchange is compromised, the shared secret can be learned by an attacker, and the attacker may be able to fake the connectivity check validation and open a TCP connection to the target. Hence, using additional security mechanisms (e.g., application-layer security) that mitigate these risks is RECOMMENDED. A STUN amplification attack is described in Section 18.5.2 of [RFC5245]. The same considerations apply to TCP, but the amplification effect with TCP is larger due to need for establishing a TCP connection before any checks are performed. Therefore, an ICE agent SHOULD NOT have more than 5 outstanding TCP connection attempts with the same peer to the same IP address. If both agents use the lite mode, no connectivity checks are sent, and additional procedures (e.g., media-level security) are needed to validate the connection. The lack of connectivity checks is especially problematic if one of the hosts is behind a NAT and has an address from a private address space: the peer may accidentally connect to a host in a different subnet that uses the same private address space. This is one of the reasons why the lite mode is not appropriate for an ICE agent located behind a NAT. A more detailed analysis of different attacks and the various ways ICE prevents them are described in [RFC5245]. Those considerations apply to this specification.
RFC5226]. Assignments consist of an extension token (as defined in Section 15.1 of [RFC5245]) and a reference to the document defining the extension. Token Reference ----- --------- UDP RFC 5245, Section 15.1 TCP RFC 6544, Section 4.5 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002. [RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, March 2004. [RFC4145] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145, September 2005.
[RFC4571] Lazzaro, J., "Framing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packets over Connection- Oriented Transport", RFC 4571, July 2006. [RFC4572] Lennox, J., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4572, July 2006. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April 2010. [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, October 2008. [RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, May 2010. [RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010. [IMC05] Guha, S. and P. Francis, "Characterization and Measurement of TCP Traversal through NATs and Firewalls", Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, 2005. [NAT-PMP] Cheshire, S., Krochmal, M., and K. Sekar, "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)", Work in Progress, April 2008. [PCP-BASE] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", Work in Progress, March 2012.
[RFC1928] Leech, M., Ganis, M., Lee, Y., Kuris, R., Koblas, D., and L. Jones, "SOCKS Protocol Version 5", RFC 1928, March 1996. [RFC3089] Kitamura, H., "A SOCKS-based IPv6/IPv4 Gateway Mechanism", RFC 3089, April 2001. [RFC3103] Borella, M., Grabelsky, D., Lo, J., and K. Taniguchi, "Realm Specific IP: Protocol Specification", RFC 3103, October 2001. [RFC4251] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, January 2006. [RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, February 2006. [RFC4540] Stiemerling, M., Quittek, J., and C. Cadar, "NEC's Simple Middlebox Configuration (SIMCO) Protocol Version 3.0", RFC 4540, May 2006. [RFC4975] Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007. [RFC5190] Quittek, J., Stiemerling, M., and P. Srisuresh, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Middlebox Communication", RFC 5190, March 2008. [RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P. Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142, RFC 5382, October 2008. [RFC6062] Perreault, S. and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations", RFC 6062, November 2010. [RFC6081] Thaler, D., "Teredo Extensions", RFC 6081, January 2011. [RFC6156] Camarillo, G., Novo, O., and S. Perreault, "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6", RFC 6156, April 2011. [UPnP-IGD] Warrier, U., Iyer, P., Pennerath, F., Marynissen, G., Schmitz, M., Siddiqi, W., and M. Blaszczak, "Internet Gateway Device (IGD) Standardized Device Control Protocol V 1.0", November 2001.
IMC05] that with the population of NATs deployed at the time of the measurements (2005), one of the NAT traversal techniques described here, TCP simultaneous-open, worked in roughly 45% of the cases. Also, not all operating systems implement TCP simultaneous-open properly and thus are not able to use such candidates. However, when more NATs comply with the requirements set by [RFC5382] and operating system TCP stacks are fixed, the success probability of simultaneous-open is likely to increase. Also, it is important to implement additional techniques with higher success ratios, such as Teredo, whose success in different scenarios is described in Figure 1 of [RFC6081]. Finally, it should be noted that implementing various techniques listed in Section 5 should increase the success probability, but many of these techniques require support from the endpoints and/or from some network elements (e.g., from the NATs). Without comprehensive experimental data on how well different techniques are supported, the actual increase of success probability is hard to evaluate.
Figure 8 in [RFC5245], with the same IP addresses. The examples shown here should be considered strictly informative. In the first example, the offer contains only TCP candidates (lines are folded in examples to satisfy RFC formatting rules): v=0 o=jdoe 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 10.0.1.1 s= c=IN IP4 192.0.2.3 t=0 0 a=ice-pwd:asd88fgpdd777uzjYhagZg a=ice-ufrag:8hhY m=audio 45664 TCP/RTP/AVP 0 b=RS:0 b=RR:0 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 a=setup:active a=connection:new a=candidate:1 1 TCP 2128609279 10.0.1.1 9 typ host tcptype active a=candidate:2 1 TCP 2124414975 10.0.1.1 8998 typ host tcptype passive a=candidate:3 1 TCP 2120220671 10.0.1.1 8999 typ host tcptype so a=candidate:4 1 TCP 1688207359 192.0.2.3 9 typ srflx raddr 10.0.1.1 rport 9 tcptype active a=candidate:5 1 TCP 1684013055 192.0.2.3 45664 typ srflx raddr 10.0.1.1 rport 8998 tcptype passive a=candidate:6 1 TCP 1692401663 192.0.2.3 45687 typ srflx raddr 10.0.1.1 rport 8999 tcptype so
The answer to that offer could look like this: v=0 o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 192.0.2.1 s= c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1 t=0 0 a=ice-pwd:YH75Fviy6338Vbrhrlp8Yh a=ice-ufrag:9uB6 m=audio 3478 TCP/RTP/AVP 0 b=RS:0 b=RR:0 a=setup:passive a=connection:new a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 a=candidate:1 1 TCP 2128609279 192.0.2.1 9 typ host tcptype active a=candidate:2 1 TCP 2124414975 192.0.2.1 3478 typ host tcptype passive a=candidate:3 1 TCP 2120220671 192.0.2.1 3482 typ host tcptype so In the second example, UDP and TCP media streams are mixed, but S-O candidates are omitted due to hosts not supporting TCP simultaneous- open, and UDP candidates are preferred (but preference order for candidate types is kept the same) by decreasing the TCP candidate type preferences by one (i.e., using type preference 125 for the host candidates and 99 for the server reflexive candidates): v=0 o=jdoe 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 10.0.1.1 s= c=IN IP4 192.0.2.3 t=0 0 a=ice-pwd:asd88fgpdd777uzjYhagZg a=ice-ufrag:8hhY m=audio 45664 RTP/AVP 0 b=RS:0 b=RR:0 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 a=candidate:1 1 TCP 2111832063 10.0.1.1 9 typ host tcptype active a=candidate:2 1 TCP 2107637759 10.0.1.1 9012 typ host tcptype passive a=candidate:3 1 TCP 1671430143 192.0.2.3 9 typ srflx raddr 10.0.1.1 rport 9 tcptype active a=candidate:4 1 TCP 1667235839 192.0.2.3 44642 typ srflx raddr 10.0.1.1 rport 9012 tcptype passive a=candidate:5 1 UDP 2130706431 10.0.1.1 8998 typ host a=candidate:6 1 UDP 1694498815 192.0.2.3 45664 typ srflx raddr 10.0.1.1 rport 8998
The corresponding answer could look like this: v=0 o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 192.0.2.1 s= c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1 t=0 0 a=ice-pwd:YH75Fviy6338Vbrhrlp8Yh a=ice-ufrag:9uB6 m=audio 3478 RTP/AVP 0 b=RS:0 b=RR:0 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 a=candidate:1 1 TCP 2111832063 192.0.2.1 9 typ host tcptype active a=candidate:2 1 TCP 2107637759 192.0.2.1 3478 typ host tcptype passive a=candidate:3 1 UDP 2130706431 192.0.2.1 3478 typ host
http://www.jdrosen.net Ari Keranen Ericsson Hirsalantie 11 02420 Jorvas Finland EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org Bruce B. Lowekamp Skype EMail: email@example.com Adam Roach Tekelec 17210 Campbell Rd., Suite 250 Dallas, TX 75252 US EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org