Internet DRAFT - draft-wing-behave-symmetric-rtprtcp
draft-wing-behave-symmetric-rtprtcp
BEHAVE D. Wing
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Best Current April 13, 2007
Practice
Expires: October 15, 2007
Symmetric RTP/RTCP
draft-wing-behave-symmetric-rtprtcp-03
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 15, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document recommends using one UDP port pair for both
communication directions of bidirectional RTP and RTCP sessions,
commonly called "symmetric RTP" and "symmetric RTCP."
Wing Expires October 15, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Symmetric RTP and RTCP April 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definition of Symmetric RTP and Symmetric RTCP . . . . . . . . 4
4. Recommended Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Wing Expires October 15, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Symmetric RTP and RTCP April 2007
1. Introduction
TCP [RFC0793], which is inherently bidirectional, transmits and
receives data using the same local port. That is, when a TCP
connection is established from host A with source TCP port "a" to a
remote host, the remote host sends packets back to host A's source
TCP port "a".
However, UDP is not inherently bidirectional and UDP does not require
using the same port for sending and receiving bidirectional traffic.
Rather, some UDP applications use a single UDP port to transmit and
receive (e.g., DNS [RFC1035]), some applications use different UDP
ports to transmit and receive with explicit signaling (e.g., TFTP
[RFC1350]), and other applications don't specify the choice of
transmit and receive ports (RTP [RFC3550]).
Because RTP and RTCP are not inherently bidirectional protocols, and
UDP is not a bidirectional protocol, the usefulness of using the same
UDP port for transmitting and receiving has been generally ignored
for RTP and RTCP. Many firewalls, NATs [RFC3022], and RTP
implementations expect symmetric RTP, and do not work in the presence
of asymmetric RTP. However, this term has never been defined. This
document defines "symmetric RTP" and "symmetric RTCP".
The UDP port number to receive media, and the UDP port to transmit
media are both selected by the device that receives that media and
transmits that media. For unicast flows, the receive port is
communicated to the remote peer (e.g., SDP [RFC4566] carried in SIP
[RFC3261], SAP [RFC2974], or Megaco/H.248 [RFC3525]).
There is no correspondence between the local RTP (or RTCP) port and
the remote RTP (or RTCP) port. That is, device "A" might choose its
local transmit and receive port to be 1234. Its peer, device "B", is
not constrained to also use port 1234 for its port. In fact, such a
constraint is impossible to meet because device "B" might already be
using that port for another application.
The benefits of using one UDP port pair is described below in
Section 4.
2. Conventions Used in this Document
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 [RFC2119].
Wing Expires October 15, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Symmetric RTP and RTCP April 2007
3. Definition of Symmetric RTP and Symmetric RTCP
A device supports symmetric RTP if it selects, communicates, and uses
IP addresses and port numbers such that, when receiving a
bidirectional RTP media stream on UDP port "A" and IP address "a", it
also transmits RTP media for that stream from the same source UDP
port "A" and IP address "a". That is, it uses the same UDP port to
transmit and receive one RTP stream.
A device which doesn't support symmetric RTP would transmit RTP from
a different port, or from a different IP address, than the port and
IP address used to receive RTP for that bidirectional media steam.
A device supports symmetric RTCP if it selects, communicates, and
uses IP addresses and port numbers such that, when receiving RTCP
packets for a media stream on UDP port "B" and IP address "b", it
also transmits RTCP packets for that stream from the same source UDP
port "B" and IP address "b". That is, it uses the same UDP port to
transmit and receive one RTCP stream.
A device which doesn't support symmetric RTCP would transmit RTCP
from a different port, or from a different IP address, than the port
and IP address used to receive RTCP.
4. Recommended Usage
There are two specific instances where symmetric RTP and symmetric
RTCP are REQUIRED:
The first instance is NATs that lack integrated Application Layer
Gateway (ALG) functionality. Such NATs require that endpoints use
symmetric UDP ports to establish bidirectional traffic. This
requirement exists for all types of NATs described in section 4 of
[RFC4787]. ALGs are defined in section 4.4 of [RFC3022].
The second instance is Session Border Controllers (SBCs) and other
forms of RTP and RTCP relays (e.g., [I-D.ietf-behave-turn]). Media
relays are necessary to establish bidirectional UDP communication
across a NAT that is 'Address-Dependent' or 'Address and Port-
Dependent' [RFC4787]. However, even with a media relay, symmetric
UDP ports are still required to traverse such a NAT.
There are other instances where symmetric RTP and symmetric RTCP are
helpful, but not required. For example, if a firewall can expect
symmetric RTP and symmetric RTCP then the firewall's dynamic per-call
port filter list can be more restrictive compared to asymmetric RTP
and asymmetric RTCP. Symmetric RTP and symmetric RTCP can also ease
Wing Expires October 15, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Symmetric RTP and RTCP April 2007
debugging and troubleshooting.
Other UDP-based protocols can also benefit from common local transmit
and receive ports.
There are no known cases where symmetric RTP or symmetric RTCP are
harmful.
For these reasons it is RECOMMENDED that symmetric RTP and symmetric
RTCP always be used for bidirectional RTP media streams.
5. Security Considerations
If an attacker learns the source and destination UDP ports of a
symmetric RTP or symmetric RTCP flow, the attacker can send RTP or
RTCP packets to that host. This differs from asymmetric RTP and
asymmetric RTCP, where an attacker has to learn the UDP source and
destination ports used for the reverse traffic, before it can send
packets to that host. Thus, if a host uses symmetric RTP or
symmetric RTCP, an attacker need only see one RTP or RTCP packet in
order to attack either RTP endpoint. Note that this attack is
similar to that of other UDP-based protocols that use one UDP port
pair (e.g., DNS [RFC1035]).
6. IANA Considerations
This document doesn't require any IANA registrations.
7. Acknowledgments
The author thanks Francois Audet, Sunil Bhargo, Lars Eggert, Francois
Le Faucheur, Cullen Jennings, Benny Rodrig, Robert Sparks, and Joe
Stone for their assistance with this document.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Wing Expires October 15, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Symmetric RTP and RTCP April 2007
8.2. Informational References
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
RFC 4787, January 2007.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
January 2001.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1350] Sollins, K., "The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2)", STD 33,
RFC 1350, July 1992.
[I-D.ietf-behave-turn]
Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining Relay Addresses from Simple
Traversal Underneath NAT (STUN)",
draft-ietf-behave-turn-03 (work in progress), March 2007.
[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.
[RFC2974] Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session
Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.
[RFC3525] Groves, C., Pantaleo, M., Anderson, T., and T. Taylor,
"Gateway Control Protocol Version 1", RFC 3525, June 2003.
Wing Expires October 15, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Symmetric RTP and RTCP April 2007
Author's Address
Dan Wing
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: dwing@cisco.com
Wing Expires October 15, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Symmetric RTP and RTCP April 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Wing Expires October 15, 2007 [Page 8]
