Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance (behave)
-----------------------------------------------------
Charter
Last Modified: 2008-12-16
Current Status: Active Working Group
Chair(s):
Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Transport Area Director(s):
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Transport Area Advisor:
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:behave@ietf.org
To Subscribe: behave-request@ietf.org
In Body: In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave
Description of Working Group:
The behavior of NATs varies from one implementation to
another. As a result it is very difficult for applications to predict
or discover the behavior of these devices. Predicting and/or
discovering the behavior of NATs is important for designing
application protocols and NAT traversal techniques that work reliably
in existing networks. This situation is especially problematic for end-
to-end applications where one or both end-points are behind a NAT, such
as multiuser games, interactive multimedia and P2P download.
The working group documents best current practices to enable NATs to
function in as deterministic a fashion as possible. The NAT
behavior practices will be application independent. This has already
completed for UDP, TCP, DCCP, Multicast and ICMP. It continues with SCTP
and any additional protocol deemed necessary to handle. The WG has
documented approaches for characterizing and testing NAT devices.
BEHAVE will develop protocol-independent toolkits usable by application
protocols for NAT traversal. The WG has already produced an update of
the binding discovery protocol STUN. It will now produce a relay
protocol that focuses on security that is usable with both IPv4 and
IPv6, and capable of relaying between the two IP versions.
The goal of this work is to encourage migration to IPv6. To support
deployments where communicating hosts require using different address
families (IPv4 or IPv6), address family translation is needed to
establish communication. In BEHAVE's specification work on this topic
it will coordinate with the V6ops WG on requirements and operational
considerations.
"An IPv4 network" or "an IPv6 network" in the descriptions below refer
to a network with a clearly identifiable administrative domain (e.g., an
enterprise campus network, a mobile operator's cellular network, a
residential subscriber network, etc.). It will also be that network that
deploys the necessary equipment for translation.
The BEHAVE WG will design solutions for the following four translation
scenarios; other scenarios are out of scope:
1. An IPv6 network to IPv4 Internet, i.e. perform translation between
IPv4 and IPv6 for packets in uni- or bi-directional flows that are
initiated from an IPv6 host towards an IPv4 host. The translator
function is intended to service a specific IPv6 network of arbitary
size. Port translation is necessary on the IPv4 side for efficient
IPv4 address usage.
2. IPv6 Internet to an IPv4 network, i.e. perform translation between
IPv4 and IPv6 for packets in uni- or bi-directional flows that are
initiated from an IPv6 host towards an IPv4 host. The translator
function services is intended to service a specific IPv4 network
using either private or public IPv4 addresses. Because this scenario
has different constraints compared to (1), e.g. the IPv4 hosts that
are to be reachable over IPv6 can be enumerated. The WG should
attempt to design a simpler solution with less impact on
applications.
3. An IPv4 network to IPv6 Internet, i.e. perform translation between
IPv4 and IPv6 for packets in uni- or bi-directional flows that are
initiated from an IPv4 host towards an IPv6 host. The translator
function is intended to service a specific IPv4 network using either
public or private IPv4 address space.
4. IPv4 Internet to an IPv6 network, i.e. perform translation between
IPv4 and IPv6 for packets in uni- or bi-directional flows that are
initiated from an IPv4 host towards an IPv6 host. The translator
function is intended to service a specific IPv6 network where
selected IPv6 hosts and services are to be reachable.
All translation solutions shall be capable of handling flows using TCP,
UDP, DCCP, and SCTP, unless they prevent a timely completion of the work
item. The fundamental parts of ICMP are also required to work.
Additional protocols directly on top of IP may be supported. Translation
mechanisms must handle IP fragmentation.
The translators should support multicast traffic and its control traffic
(IGMP and MLD) across them, both Single Source Multicast (SSM) and Any
Source Multicast (ASM). However, the WG may determine that it becomes
too complex or too difficult to realize with maintained functionality,
for some or all cases of multicast functionality.
Translation mechanisms cannot transparently support protocols that embed
network addresses within their protocol messages without application
level gateways (ALGs). Because ALGs have security issues (like blocking
usage of TLS), are error prone and brittle, and hinder application
development, the usage of ALGs in the defined translators should be
avoided. Instead application developers will need to be aware and use
mechanisms that handle the address family translation. ALGs may be
considered only for the most crucial of legacy applications.
DNS is a crucial part in making a large number of applications work
across a translator. Thus the solution to the above translation cases
shall include recommendations for DNS. If additional DNS functionality
is needed, it may be developed. Any DNS extensions must be developed
together with the DNSEXT WG, including issuing a joint WG last call for
any documents.
The WG needs to determine the best method for providing address space to
a translator in the different deployment cases and documenting the pros
and cons of the suggested approaches. The WG is to seek input from the
Routing, Operations and Internet areas.
Solutions may solve more than one of the cases, however timely delivery
is more important than a unified solution.
Goals and Milestones:
Done Submit BCP that defines unicast UDP behavioral requirements for
NATs to IESG
Done Submit a BCP that defines TCP behavioral requireents for NATs
to IESG
Done Submit a BCP that defines ICMP behavioral requirements for NATs
to IESG
Done Submit informational that discusses current NAT traversal
techniques used by applications
Done Submit BCP that defines multicast UDP
Done Submit revision of RFC 3489 to IESG behavioral requirements for
NATs to IESG
Done Submit informational document for rfc3489bis test vectors
Done Submit experimental document that describes how an application
can determine the type of NAT it is behind
Done Submit BCP document for DCCP NAT behavior
Dec 2008 Submit BCP document for SCTP NAT behavior
Dec 2008 Submit standards-track relay protocol
Jan 2009 Determine relative prioritization of the four translation
cases.
Mar 2009 Submit standards-track document for relaying of a TCP
bytestream
Mar 2009 Submit standard-track document of an IPv6 relay protocol to
IESG
Mar 2009 Determine what solutions(s) and components are needed to solve
each of the four cases. Create new milestones for the
solution(s) and the components.
Sep 2009 Target for first solution to be submitted to IESG for
publication as standards track RFC.
Internet-Drafts:
Posted Revised I-D Title <Filename>
------ ------- --------------------------------------------
Mar 2006 Apr 2009 <draft-ietf-behave-turn-14.txt>
Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to
Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
Mar 2006 Mar 2009 <draft-ietf-behave-turn-ipv6-06.txt>
Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6
Feb 2007 Mar 2009 <draft-ietf-behave-nat-behavior-discovery-06.txt>
NAT Behavior Discovery Using STUN
Nov 2007 Mar 2009 <draft-ietf-behave-turn-tcp-02.txt>
Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP
Allocations
Dec 2007 Nov 2008 <draft-ietf-behave-stun-test-vectors-04.txt>
Test vectors for STUN
May 2008 Nov 2008 <draft-ietf-behave-dccp-05.txt>
Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for
the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
Oct 2008 Feb 2009 <draft-ietf-behave-sctpnat-01.txt>
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address
Translation
Dec 2008 Mar 2009 <draft-ietf-behave-turn-uri-01.txt>
Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform Resource
Identifiers
Request For Comments:
RFC Stat Published Title
------- -- ----------- ------------------------------------
RFC4787BCP Jan 2007 Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral
Requirements for Unicast UDP
RFC5135BCP Feb 2008 IP Multicast Requirements for a Network Address
Translator (NAT) and a Network Address Port Translator
(NAPT)
RFC5128 I Mar 2008 State of Peer-to-Peer(P2P) Communication Across Network
Address Translators(NATs)
RFC5382BCP Oct 2008 NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP
RFC5389 PS Oct 2008 Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
RFC5508BCP Apr 2009 NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP