Port Control Protocol R. Penno Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Intended status: Standards Track D. Wing Expires: April 19, 2012 Cisco P. Selkirk Internet Systems Consortium October 17, 2011 PCP Support for Nested NAT Environments draft-penno-pcp-nested-nat-00 Abstract Nested NATs or multi-layer NATs are already widely deployed. They are characterized by two or more NAT devices in the path of packets from the subscriber to the Internet. Moreover, NAT devices current deployed are PCP unaware and It is assumed that NAT aware PCP devices will take a long time to be rolled out. Therefore in order to lower the adoption barrier of PCP and make it work for current deployed networks, this draft proposes a few mechanisms for PCP enabled clients to work through nested NATs with varying level of PCP protocol support. Requirements Language 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]. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2012. Copyright Notice Penno, et al. Expires April 19, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft penno-nested-nat October 2011 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 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 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. PCP Nested NAT Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. NAT and UPnP unaware Intermediate NATs . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. PCP Server intermediate NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. UPnP enabled intermediate NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4. PCP Proxy Intermediate NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4.1. PCP Proxy Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Penno, et al. Expires April 19, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft penno-nested-nat October 2011 1. Introduction Nested NATs are widely deployed and come in different topology flavors. It could be a home subscriber which has an ISP provided NAT CPE chained with another personal NAT router. It could be an ISP provided CPE chained with a CGN. 1.1. Terminology This document uses PCP terminology defined in [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]]. 1.2. Problem Statement The current NAT deployed devices will take years to be replaced or upgraded to become PCP aware. Moreover, nested NATs are common and come in a variety of flavors (examples below). Therefore, as applications become PCP enabled, it is important that they can work through nested NAT networks as is, without requiring infrastructure changes. From the point of view of a PCP enabled application running on an end host, the core problem is common across different nested NAT topologies: how to install PCP mappings in a nested NAT scenario where the different NATs in the path have varying level of PCP protocol support. Penno, et al. Expires April 19, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft penno-nested-nat October 2011 ,-----------. PCP Server ,' `--. +-------+ +------+ +----------+ / : |PCP |____|Home |______|ISP CPE |________; Public | |Client | |Router| |NAT Router| : Internet | +-------+ +------+ +----------+ \ | \ ; `------. ,-' `-----' ,-----------. PCP Server ,' `--. +-------+ +------+ +-------+ / : |PCP |____|Home |______| CGN |___________; Public | |Client | |Router| | | : Internet | +-------+ +------+ +-------+ \ | \ ; `------. ,-' `-----' ,-----------. PCP Server ,' `--. +-------+ +------+ +----------+ +-------+ / : |PCP |____|Home |__|ISP CPE |_| CGN |__; Public | |Client | |Router| |NAT Router| | | : Internet | +-------+ +------+ +----------+ +-------+ \ | \ ; `------. ,-' `-----' ,-----------. PCP Server PCP Server ,' `--. +-------+ +------+ +----------+ +-------+ / : |PCP |____|Home |__|ISP CPE |_| CGN |__; Public | |Client | |Router| |NAT Router| | | : Internet | +-------+ +------+ +----------+ +-------+ \ | \ ; `------. ,-' `-----' 1.3. Scope This proposal considers the discovery of the PCP Server out of scope. Nonetheless, it s a critical piece of PCP deployment in service provider networks. This proposal is aimed at solving the nested NAT problem without PCP protocol extensions . 2. PCP Nested NAT Methods There are a few methods to make PCP work through nested NATs. They Penno, et al. Expires April 19, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft penno-nested-nat October 2011 differ mainly based on the level of support that can be expected from intermediate NATs, which can be: o PCP and UPnP unaware or disabled o PCP Server o UPnP Server o PCP Proxy The next sections discuss each scenario on the basis of protocol support on intermediate NATs. 2.1. NAT and UPnP unaware Intermediate NATs This method will most likely be used by PCP clients in nested NAT environments while PCP Proxy support in not ubiquitous. It assumes no UPnP or PCP Proxy support on intermediate NATs. This proposal leverages the current behavior of the PCP Protocol [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] which allows a PCP Client and Server to detect intervening nested NATs. The PCP Server uses the information on the outer IP and PCP headers to detect and install a proper NAT mapping and return the source IP:port from the IP header on the PCP response. It does not assume any change to current deployed NATs. 1. The PCP Client sends the MAP request as it normally would without any changes. 2. As the message goes through one (or more) PCP-unaware NAT, the source IP:port of the IP header will change accordingly 3. The PCP Server compares the PCP Client IP:port in the PCP header with the source IP:port of the IP header 4. If these are different, the server knows that the PCP message went through a PCP-unaware NAT. Therefore it installs a mapping directed to the source IP address found on the IP header and internal port of the PCP header. Penno, et al. Expires April 19, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft penno-nested-nat October 2011 s/dport: source/destination port s/dIP : source/destination IP PCP-C : PCP client iport : Internal port PCP-U : PCP Unaware NAT E-port : External port E-IP : External IP PCP Client PCP-U NAT PCP Server | | | | Map request | | | Outer sIP:192.68.0.2 | | | Outer sPort:19268 | Map request | | PCP-C Addr:192.168.0.1 | Outer sIP:10.0.0.2 | | PCP-C port:19268 | Outer sPort:10002 | | iPort:40000 | PCP-C Addr:192.168.0.2 | | -------------------> | PCP-C port:19268 | | | iPort:40000 | | | ----------------------> | | | | | | PCP client IP != Outer IP | | Allocate public IP and port | | Mapping: | | (10.0.0.2, 40000) <- (20.0.0.1, 20001) | | | | | Map response | | | Outer dIP:10.0.0.2 | | | Outer dport:10002 | | | Assigned E-port:20001 | | Map response | Assigned E-IP:20.0.0.1 | | Outer dIP:192.168.0.2 | PCP-C Addr:10.0.0.2 | | Outer dport:19268 | PCP-C port:10002 | | Assigned E-port:20001 | <---------------------- | | Assigned E-IP:20.0.0.1 | | | PCP-C Addr:10.0.0.2 | | | PCP-C port:10002 | | |<---------------------- | - Subscriber installs a port forwarding or DMZ entry on its home CPE (PCP U-NAT) through manual configuration. The entry would be (*, 40000) -> (10.0.0.1, 40000). Alternatively the application could use UPnP for the same purpose. Penno, et al. Expires April 19, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft penno-nested-nat October 2011 2.2. PCP Server intermediate NAT If the intermediate NAT implements a PCP Server (but not a Proxy), a two-step iterative process is needed in order to install PCP PEER mappings for the PCP control message itself followed by another PCP mapping for the data path. if client relies on nested NAT detection the first step is not needed. It is assumed that before the PCP MAP request to the CGN the client would install the following map on the NAT Home Gateway: (192.168.0.2, 40000) <- (10.0.0.2, 40000). The internal port that the server listens on does not necessarily needs to be 40000, it could be different than the internal port used between the CGN and HGW. PCP Client PCP Server (HGW) PCP Server (CGN) | PEER request | | | Outer sIP:192.168.0.2 | | | Outer sPort:19216 | | | PCP-C Addr:192.168.0.2 | | | PCP-C port:19216 | | | iPort:19216 | | | Remote Port:44323 | | | Remote IP: 10.0.0.1 | | | -------------------> | | | | | | PEER response | | | Outer sIP:192.168.0.1 | | | Outer sPort: 19216 | | | Assigned E-port: 10002 | | | Assigned E-IP: 10.0.0.2| | | PCP-C Addr:192.168.0.2 | | | PCP-C port:19216 | | | iPort:19216 | | | Remote Port:44323 | | | Remote IP: 10.0.0.1 | | | <--------------------- | | | (192.68.0.2,19216) -> (10.0.0.2,10002) | | Dest: 10.0.0.1, 44323 | | | | | Map request | | | Outer sIP:192.168.0.2 | | | Outer sPort:19216 | | | PCP-C Addr:10.0.0.2 | | | PCP-C port:10002 | | | iPort:40000 | | | --------------------> | | | | Map request | | | Outer sIP:10.0.0.2 | Penno, et al. Expires April 19, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft penno-nested-nat October 2011 | | Outer sPort:10002 | | | PCP-C Addr:10.0.0.2 | | | PCP-C port: 10002 | | | iPort:40000 | | | ----------------------> | | | | | | (10.0.0.2, 40000) <- (20.0.0.1, 20001) | | | | | Map response | | | Outer dIP:10.0.0.2 | | | Outer dport: 10002 | | | Assigned E-port: 20001 | | Map response | Assigned E-IP: 20.0.0.1 | | Outer dIP:192.168.0.2 | PCP-C Addr: 10.0.0.2 | | Outer dport:19216 | PCP-C port: 10002 | | Assigned E-port: 20001 | <---------------------- | | Assigned E-IP: 20.0.0.1| | | PCP-C Addr: 10.0.0.2 | | | PCP-C port: 10002 | | |<---------------------- | 2.3. UPnP enabled intermediate NAT This scenario is very similar to the PCP Server intermediate NAT, but the HGW implements a UPnP Server instead of PCP Server. The mechanics are the same with the difference that first PEER message to setup the PCP Control messages mapping is substituted by its UPnP equivalent. 2.4. PCP Proxy Intermediate NAT This method assumed that the intermediate NATs implement a PCP Proxy function. There are two non-exclusive types of proxy functions: interception (ALG) and server based. In the interception case the PCP Proxy intercepts PCP messages destined to a PCP Server downstream, modifies IP, UDP and PCP headers, allocates a mapping and send them to the downstream PCP Server. Ideally if the interception PCP Proxy also implements a PCP server it would let the PCP Client know of its existence in a PCP response and henceforth the PCP Client would start directing messages to it. In the server based proxy the PCP Client directs the PCP messages to the proxy which acts as a PCP Server and Client. More information about this method can be found in [I-D.bpw-pcp-proxy]. Penno, et al. Expires April 19, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft penno-nested-nat October 2011 2.4.1. PCP Proxy Discovery TBD 3. IANA Considerations TBD 4. Security Considerations TBD 5. Acknowledgements TBD 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2766] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766, February 2000. [RFC2960] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L., and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000. [RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, January 2007. [RFC4966] Aoun, C. and E. Davies, "Reasons to Move the Network Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to Historic Status", RFC 4966, July 2007. [RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P. Penno, et al. Expires April 19, 2012 [Page 9] Internet-Draft penno-nested-nat October 2011 Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142, RFC 5382, October 2008. [RFC5508] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508, April 2009. 6.2. Informative References [I-D.bpw-pcp-proxy] Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., and F. Dupont, "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function", draft-bpw-pcp-proxy-02 (work in progress), September 2011. [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", draft-ietf-pcp-base-14 (work in progress), October 2011. [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. [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April 2010. [RFC5853] Hautakorpi, J., Camarillo, G., Penfield, R., Hawrylyshen, A., and M. Bhatia, "Requirements from Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Session Border Control (SBC) Deployments", RFC 5853, April 2010. Authors' Addresses Reinaldo Penno Juniper Networks 1194 N Mathilda Avenue Sunnyvale, California 94089 USA Email: rpenno@juniper.net Penno, et al. Expires April 19, 2012 [Page 10] Internet-Draft penno-nested-nat October 2011 Dan Wing Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, California 95134 USA Email: dwing@cisco.com Paul Selkirk Internet Systems Consortium 950 Charter Street Redwood City, California 94063 Phone: Fax: Email: pselkirk@isc.org URI: Penno, et al. Expires April 19, 2012 [Page 11]