Journey of Life: July 2011

One of the best articles describing udp hole punching

http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~baford/nat/draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt

There is another article that goes into details on how to predict port on symmetrical NAT. Here is the article/IETF DRAFT
Internet Draft                                                   B. Ford
Document: draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                M.I.T.
Expires: October 2003                                         April 2003


   Network Address Translation and Peer-to-Peer Applications (NATP2P)


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 10 of RFC2026.  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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   Distribution of this document is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes and recommends methods by which peer-to-peer
   (P2P) applications can operate efficiently in the presence of Network
   Address Translation (NAT).  This document also provides
   recommendations for the design of network address translators, in
   order for them to support P2P applications effectively without
   compromising security or performance.  This memo focuses on the
   interaction of P2P with NAT in the absence of any special proxy,
   gateway, or relaying protocols.  While not intending to preclude the
   use of such protocols, the goal of this memo is to enable P2P
   applications to function automatically without specific knowledge of
   the type, location, or configuration of the NAT.





Ford                                                            [Page 1]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


1. Introduction

   The ubiquitous deployment of Network Address Translation (NAT) on the
   Internet has provided an effective if hopefully temporary means of
   working around the ongoing depletion of the IP address space.  At the
   same time, however, the asymmetric addressing and connectivity
   regimes established by NAT and firewall systems have created unique
   problems for peer-to-peer (P2P) applications and protocols, such as
   teleconferencing and multiplayer on-line gaming.  This document
   discusses these issues and how they can be addressed.  Familiarity is
   assumed with NAT terminology and conventions, as specified in [NAT-
   TRAD] and [NAT-TERM].  As used throughout this document, the term
   "NAT" refers to "Traditional NAT" in both of its standard variants:
   namely Basic NAT, in which only IP addresses are translated, as well
   as Network Address/Port Translation (NAPT), where both IP addresses
   and transport-level port numbers are translated.  In general, this
   document always assumes NAPT as the standard "worst-case" scenario.

   In the traditional client/server paradigm, for which current NAT and
   firewall mechanisms are primarily designed, network communication
   typically operates in terms of sessions that originate in a privately
   addressed network behind a network address translator, and are
   directed to a well-connected public server with a stable IP address
   and DNS mapping.  The client, or originator, of these connections
   often does not have its own routable IP address on the public
   Internet, but instead must share a single public IP address with a
   number of other hosts on the same private network using the NAT as a
   multiplexor.  The lack of a stable, dedicated public IP address is
   not a problem for most client software such as web browsers, because
   the client only needs to be addressable for the duration of a
   particular session.

   In the peer-to-peer paradigm, however, Internet hosts that would
   normally be considered to be "clients" need to establish
   communication sessions directly with each other.  In this case, both
   the initiator and responder in a communication session might lie
   behind a NAT/Firewall, without any permanent IP address or other form
   of public network presence.  A common on-line gaming architecture,
   for example, is for the participating application hosts to contact a
   well-known server for initialization and administration purposes, but
   then to establish direct connections with each other for fast and
   efficient propagation of updates during gameplay.  Similarly, a file
   sharing application might contact a well-known server for resource
   discovery or searching purposes, but establish direct connections
   with peer hosts for data transfer.  NAT creates a problem for peer-
   to-peer connections because unless the NAT is specially configured,
   hosts behind the NAT have no consistent, permanently usable ports to
   which incoming TCP or UDP connections from "the Internet at large"



Ford                                                            [Page 2]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


   can be directed.  Firewall functionality, which is typically but not
   always bundled with NAT, creates a similar problem because firewalls
   are generally designed as one-way filters: sessions initiated inside
   the protected network are allowed, but attempts by external hosts on
   the Internet at large to initiate communication sessions with hosts
   inside the firewall are blocked.  RFC 3235 [NAT-APPL] briefly
   addresses this issue, but does not offer any general solutions that
   do not compromise security; filling that gap is the purpose of this
   document.

2. Techniques for P2P Communication with NAT

   This section describes in detail the currently known techniques for
   implementing peer-to-peer communication in the presence of NAT, from
   the perspective of the application or protocol designer.

2.1. Relaying

   The most reliable, but least efficient, method of implementing peer-
   to-peer communication in the presence of NAT is to make the peer-to-
   peer communication look to the network like client/server
   communication.  For example, suppose two client hosts, A and B, have
   each initiated TCP or UDP connections with a well-known server S
   having a permanent IP address.  Clients A and B both reside on
   privately addressed networks behind network address translators,
   however, and neither of them have control over a public IP address or
   permanently stable TCP or UDP port to which incoming connections can
   be directed.

                                Server S
                                   |
                                   |
            +----------------------+----------------------+
            |                                             |
          NAT A                                         NAT B
            |                                             |
            |                                             |
         Client A                                      Client B

   Instead of attempting to establish a direct TCP or UDP connection
   between clients A and B, the two clients can simply use the server S
   to relay messages between them.  For example, to send a message to
   client B, client A simply sends the message to server S along its
   already-established client/server connection, and server S then sends
   the message on to client B using its existing client/server
   connection with B.  This method has the advantage that it will always
   work as long as both clients have connectivity to the server.  Its
   obvious disadvantages are that it consumes the server's processing



Ford                                                            [Page 3]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


   power and network bandwidth unnecessarily, and communication latency
   between the two clients is likely to be increased even if the server
   is well-connected.

2.2. Connection Reversal

   The second technique works if only one of the clients is behind a
   NAT.  For example, suppose client A is behind a NAT but client B is
   not, as in the following diagram:

                                Server S
                            18.181.0.31:1235
                                   |
                                   |
            +----------------------+----------------------+
            |                                             |
          NAT A                                           |
    155.99.25.11:62000                                    |
            |                                             |
            |                                             |
         Client A                                      Client B
      10.0.0.1:1234                               138.76.29.7:1234

   Client A has private IP address 10.0.0.1, and the application is
   using TCP port 1234.  This client has established a connection with
   server S at public IP address 18.181.0.31 and port 1235.  NAT A has
   assigned TCP port 62000, at its own public IP address 155.99.25.11,
   to serve as the temporary public endpoint address for A's session
   with S: therefore, server S believes that client A is at IP address
   155.99.25.11 using port 62000.  Client B, however, has its own
   permanent IP address, 138.76.29.7, and the peer-to-peer application
   on B is accepting TCP connections at port 1234.

   Now suppose client B would like to initiate a peer-to-peer
   communication session with client A.  B might first attempt to
   contact client A either at the address client A believes itself to
   have, namely 10.0.0.1:1234, or at the address of A as observed by
   server S, namely 155.99.25.11:62000.  In either case, however, the
   connection will fail.  In the first case, traffic directed to IP
   address 10.0.0.1 will simply be dropped by the network because
   10.0.0.1 is not a publicly routable IP address.  In the second case,
   the TCP SYN request from B will arrive at NAT A directed to port
   62000, but NAT A will typically reject the connection request with a
   RST packet because only outgoing connections are allowed.

   After attempting and failing to establish a direct connection to A,
   client B can use server S to relay a request to client A to initiate
   a "reversed" connection to client B.  Client A, upon receiving this



Ford                                                            [Page 4]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


   relayed request through S, opens a TCP connection to client B at B's
   public IP address and port number.  NAT A allows the connection to
   proceed because it is originating inside the firewall, and client B
   can receive the connection because it is not behind a NAT.

   A variety of current peer-to-peer systems implement this technique.
   Its main limitation, of course, is that it only works as long as only
   one of the communicating peers is behind a NAT: if both peers are
   behind NATs, then the method fails.  Because connection reversal is
   not a general solution to the problem, it is NOT recommended as a
   primary strategy.  Applications may choose to attempt connection
   reversal, but should be table to fall back automatically on another
   mechanism such as relaying if neither a "forward" nor a "reversed"
   connection can be established.

2.3. UDP Hole Punching

   The third technique, and the one of primary interest in this memo, is
   sometimes known as "UDP Hole Punching."  UDP hole punching relies on
   well-established NAT conventions to allow appropriately designed
   peer-to-peer applications to "punch holes" through NATs and firewalls
   and establish direct connectivity with each other, even when both
   communicating hosts may lie behind a NAT.  This technique was
   mentioned briefly in section 5.1 of RFC 3027 [NAT-PROT] and has been
   informally described elsewhere on the Internet [KEGEL].  As the name
   implies, unfortunately, this technique works reliably only with UDP.

   We will consider two specific scenarios, and how applications can be
   designed to handle both of them gracefully.  In the first situation,
   representing the common case, two clients desiring direct peer-to-
   peer communication reside behind different NATs.  In the second, the
   two clients actually reside behind the same NAT, but do not
   necessarily know that they do.

2.3.1. Clients Behind Different NATs

   Suppose clients A and B both have private IP addresses and lie behind
   different network address translators.  The peer-to-peer application
   running on clients A and B and on server S each use UDP port 1234.  A
   and B have each initiated UDP communication sessions with server S,
   causing NAT A to assign its own public UDP port 62000 for A's session
   with S, and causing NAT B to assign its port 31000 to B's session
   with S, respectively.








Ford                                                            [Page 5]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


                                Server S
                            18.181.0.31:1234
                                   |
                                   |
            +----------------------+----------------------+
            |                                             |
          NAT A                                         NAT B
    155.99.25.11:62000                            138.76.29.7:31000
            |                                             |
            |                                             |
         Client A                                      Client B
      10.0.0.1:1234                                 10.1.1.3:1234

   Now suppose that client A wants to establish a UDP communication
   session directly with client B.  If A simply starts sending UDP
   requests to B's public address, 138.76.29.7:31000, then NAT B will
   typically discard these incoming messages because the source address
   and port number does not match those of S, with which the original
   outgoing session was established.  Similarly, if B simply starts
   sending UDP requests to A's public address, then NAT A will discard
   these messages.

   Suppose A starts sending UDP requests to B's public address, however,
   and simultaneously relays a request through server S to B, asking B
   to start sending UDP requests to A's public address.  A's outgoing
   messages directed to B's public address (138.76.29.7:31000) will
   cause NAT A to open up a new communication session between A's
   private address and B's public address.  At the same time, B's
   messages to A's public address (155.99.25.11:62000) will cause NAT B
   to open up a new communication session between B's private address
   and A's public address.  Once the new UDP sessions have been opened
   up in each direction, client A and B can communicate with each other
   directly without further reference to or burden on the "introduction"
   server S.

   The UDP hole punching technique has several useful properties.  Once
   a direct peer-to-peer UDP connection has been established between two
   NATted clients, either party on that connection can in turn take over
   the role of "introducer" and help the other party establish peer-to-
   peer connections with additional peers, minimizing the load on the
   initial introduction server S.  The application does not need to
   attempt to detect explicitly what kind of NAT it is behind, if any
   [STUN], since the procedure above will establish peer-to-peer
   communication channels equally well if either or both clients do not
   happen to be behind a NAT.  The hole punching technique even works
   automatically under "Twice NAT", where one or both clients are
   removed from the public Internet via two or more levels of address
   translation.



Ford                                                            [Page 6]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


2.3.2. Clients Behind the Same NAT

   Now consider the scenario in which the two clients (probably
   unknowingly) happen to reside behind the same NAT, and are therefore
   located in the same private IP address space.  Client A has
   established a UDP session with server S, to which the common NAT has
   assigned public port number 62000.  Client B has similarly
   established a session with S, to which the NAT has assigned public
   port number 62001.

                                Server S
                            18.181.0.31:1234
                                   |
                                   |
                                  NAT
                         A-S 155.99.25.11:62000
                         B-S 155.99.25.11:62001
                                   |
            +----------------------+----------------------+
            |                                             |
         Client A                                      Client B
      10.0.0.1:1234                                 10.1.1.3:1234

   Suppose that A and B use the UDP hole punching technique as outlined
   above to establish a communication channel using server S as an
   introducer.  Then A and B will learn each other's public IP addresses
   and port numbers as observed by server S, and start sending each
   other messages at those public addresses.  The two clients will be
   able to communicate with each other this way as long as the NAT
   allows hosts on the internal network to open translated UDP sessions
   with other internal hosts and not just with external hosts.  For
   example, when A sends a UDP packet to B's public address, the packet
   initially has a source IP address and port number of 10.0.0.1:124 and
   a destination of 155.99.25.11:62001.  The NAT receives this packet,
   translates it to have a source of 155.99.25.11:62000 (A's public
   address) and a destination of 10.1.1.3:1234, and then forwards it on
   to B.  Even if supported by the NAT, this translation and forwarding
   step is obviously unnecessary in this situation, and is likely to add
   latency to the dialog between A and B as well as burdening the NAT.

   The solution to this problem is straightforward, however.  When A and
   B initially exchange address information through server S, they
   should include their own IP addresses and port numbers as "observed"
   by themselves, as well as their addresses as observed by S.  The
   clients then simultaneously start sending packets to each other at
   each of the alternative addresses they know about, and use the first
   address that leads to successful communication.  If the two clients
   are behind the same NAT, then the packets directed to their private



Ford                                                            [Page 7]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


   addresses are likely to arrive first, resulting in a direct
   communication channel not involving the NAT.  If the two clients are
   behind different NATs, then the packets directed to their private
   addresses will fail to reach each other at all, but the clients will
   hopefully establish connectivity using their respective public
   addresses.  It is important that these packets be authenticated in
   some way, however, since in the case of different NATs it is entirely
   possible for A's messages to B's private address to reach some other,
   unrelated node on A's private network, or vice versa.

2.3.3. Consistent Port Mappings

   The hole punching technique has one main caveat: it works only if
   each of the NATs maintains a single, consistent mapping from a given
   (private IP address, private UDP port) pair to a translated (public
   IP address, public UDP port) pair, for as long as that UDP port is in
   use.  For a given UDP port on the private network, the NAT must
   ensure that the internal port is always mapped to the same public UDP
   port on the globally addressable Internet, even if communication
   occurs between that internal UDP port and multiple distinct external
   destinations on the Internet.  In particular, the NAT must not just
   naively allocate and assign a new public UDP port for each new
   session initiated from within the firewall boundary, where a
   "session" is defined by the addresses and port numbers of both
   communicating endpoints.  Assigning a new public port for each new
   session makes it impossible for a UDP application to reuse an
   already-established (public IP address, public UDP port) mapping for
   communication with different external destinations.

   While RFC 3022 [NAT-TRAD] suggests and explicitly allows NATs to
   maintain a single mapping from a (private IP address, private port)
   pair to a (public IP address, public port) pair, it unfortunately
   does not mandate this behavior.  Therefore, while many NATs implement
   the desirable behavior and therefore allow direct UDP-based P2P
   connections using the hole punching technique, other NATs currently
   do not support the technique.  Since this is the most efficient known
   method of establishing direct peer-to-peer communication between two
   nodes that are both behind NATs, and it works with a wide variety of
   existing NATs, it is recommended that applications use this technique
   if efficient peer-to-peer communication is required, but be prepared
   to fall back on simple relaying when direct communication cannot be
   established.

2.4. UDP Port Number Prediction

   A variant of the UDP hole punching technique discussed above exists
   that allows peer-to-peer UDP sessions to be created in the presence
   of some NATs that do not maintain a consistent mapping between



Ford                                                            [Page 8]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


   private and public UDP ports.  This method, sometimes called the
   "N+1" technique [BIDIR], works if public port numbers selected by the
   NAT are not held constant across all sessions originating at a given
   private IP address and port, but are nevertheless predictable.
   Consider again the situation in which two clients, A and B, each
   behind a separate NAT, have each established UDP connections with a
   permanently addressable server S:

                                  Server S
                              18.181.0.31:1234
                                     |
                                     |
              +----------------------+----------------------+
              |                                             |
            NAT A                                         NAT B
   A-S 155.99.25.11:62000                        B-S 138.76.29.7:31000
              |                                             |
              |                                             |
           Client A                                      Client B
        10.0.0.1:1234                                 10.1.1.3:1234

   NAT A has assigned its own UDP port 62000 to the communication
   session between A and S, and NAT B has assigned its port 31000 to the
   session between B and S.  By communicating through server S, A and B
   learn each other's public IP addresses and port numbers as observed
   by S.  Client A now starts sending UDP messages to port 31001 at
   address 138.76.29.7 (note the port number increment), and client B
   simultaneously starts sending messages to port 62001 at address
   155.99.25.11.  If NATs A and B assign port numbers to new sessions
   sequentially, and if not much time has passed since the A-S and B-S
   sessions were initiated, then a working bidirectional communication
   channel between A and B should result.  A's messages to B cause NAT A
   to open up a new session, to which NAT A will (hopefully) assign
   public port number 62001, because 62001 is next in sequence after the
   port number 62000 it previously assigned to the session between A and
   S.  Similarly, B's messages to A will cause NAT B to open a new
   session, to which it will (hopefully) assign port number 31001.  If
   both clients have correctly guessed the port numbers each NAT assigns
   to the new sessions, then a bidirectional UDP communication channel
   will have been established as shown below.











Ford                                                            [Page 9]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


                                  Server S
                              18.181.0.31:1234
                                     |
                                     |
              +----------------------+----------------------+
              |                                             |
            NAT A                                         NAT B
   A-S 155.99.25.11:62000                        B-S 138.76.29.7:31000
   A-B 155.99.25.11:62001                        B-A 138.76.29.7:31001
              |                                             |
              |                                             |
           Client A                                      Client B
        10.0.0.1:1234                                 10.1.1.3:1234

   Obviously there are many things that can cause this trick to fail.
   If the predicted port number at either NAT already happens to be in
   use by an unrelated session, then the NAT will skip over that port
   number and the connection attempt will fail.  If either NAT sometimes
   or always chooses port numbers non-sequentially, then the trick will
   fail.  If a different client behind NAT A (or B respectively) opens
   up a new outgoing UDP connection to any external destination after A
   (B) establishes its connection with S but before sending its first
   message to B (A), then the unrelated client will inadvertently
   "steal" the desired port number.  This trick is therefore much less
   likely to work when either NAT involved is under load.  For all of
   these reasons, it is NOT recommended that new applications implement
   this trick; it is described here for purely for historical and
   informational purposes.

2.5. Simultaneous TCP Connection Initiation

   There is a method that can be used in some cases to establish direct
   peer-to-peer TCP connections between a pair of nodes that are both
   behind NATs.  Most TCP sessions start with one endpoint sending a SYN
   packet, to which the other party responds with a SYN-ACK packet.  It
   is possible and legal, however, for two endpoints to start a TCP
   session by simultaneously sending each other SYN packets, to which
   each party subsequently responds with a separate ACK.  This procedure
   is known as a "simultaneous open."

   If a NAT receives a TCP SYN packet from outside the private network
   attempting to initiate an incoming TCP connection, the NAT will
   normally reject the connection attempt by sending back a TCP RST
   (connection reset) packet.  If, however, the SYN packet arrives with
   source and destination addresses and port numbers that correspond to
   a TCP session that the NAT believes is already active, then the NAT
   will allow the packet to pass through.  In particular, if the NAT has
   just recently seen and transmitted an outgoing SYN packet with the



Ford                                                           [Page 10]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


   same addresses and port numbers, then it will consider the session
   active and allow the incoming SYN through.  If clients A and B can
   each correctly predict the public port number that its respective NAT
   will assign the next outgoing TCP connection, and if each client
   initiates an outgoing TCP connection with the other client timed so
   that each client's outgoing SYN passes through its local NAT before
   either SYN reaches the opposite NAT, then a working peer-to-peer TCP
   connection will result.

   Unfortunately, this trick is even more fragile and timing-sensitive
   than the UDP port number prediction trick described above.  First,
   all the same things can go wrong with each side's attempt to predict
   the public port numbers the NATs will assign to the new sessions.  In
   addition, if either client's SYN arrives at the opposite NAT too
   quickly, then the NAT will reject the SYN with a RST packet, causing
   the local NAT in turn to close the new session.  Finally, even though
   support for simultaneous open is technically a mandatory part of the
   TCP specification [TCP], it is not implemented correctly or at all in
   many common operating systems.  For this reason, this trick is
   likewise mentioned here only for historical interest; it is NOT
   recommended for use by applications.  Applications that require
   efficient, direct peer-to-peer communication should use UDP.

3. NAT Design Guidelines

   This section discusses considerations for the design of network
   address translators, as they affect peer-to-peer applications.

3.1. Maintaining Consistent Public/Private Mappings for UDP Ports

   The primary and most important recommendation of this document for
   NAT designers is that the NAT maintain a consistent and stable
   mapping between a given (internal IP address, internal UDP port) pair
   and a corresponding (public IP address, public UDP port) pair for as
   long as any active sessions exist using that mapping.  The NAT may
   filter incoming traffic on a per-session basis, by examining both the
   source and destination IP addresses and port numbers in each packet.
   When a node on the private network starts sending outgoing packets to
   a new external destination, however, while using the same source IP
   address and UDP port as an existing translated UDP session, the NAT
   should ensure that the new UDP session is given the same public IP
   address and UDP port numbers as the existing session.

   One method of implementing this behavior, meant to be only
   illustrative and not prescriptive, is outlined here.  The "critical-
   path" processing performed by a NAT on a packet flowing in either
   direction typically involves extracting the source and destination IP
   addresses from the IP header, and the source and destination TCP/UDP



Ford                                                           [Page 11]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


   port numbers from the TCP/UDP header, and using these four values to
   index into a table of active sessions.  When a packet is received for
   which no entry is found in the session table, the NAT must decide
   whether or not and how to establish a new session, and this is where
   the typical "outgoing sessions only" firewall policy comes into
   effect.

   If the unknown packet was received from the public network, then it
   is usually dropped (or perhaps rejected with a RST in the case of
   TCP).  If a UDP packet for an unknown session arrives from the
   private network, however, and the NAT is configured in the typical
   way to allow outgoing UDP sessions, the then NAT looks up the
   packet's (source IP address, source UDP port) in a second internal
   table: a "mapping table."  For a given (private IP address, private
   UDP port) on the internal network, the NAT stores in the mapping
   table the corresponding (public IP address, public UDP port) it has
   assigned to represent that private endpoint.  If a mapping already
   exists, the NAT simply uses the existing mapping when constructing
   the new session.  If no such entry is present in the mapping table,
   then the NAT allocates a new public UDP port from its pool and
   creates a new mapping table entry along with the new session.  The
   NAT also maintains with each entry in the mapping table a list or
   count of the active sessions using that mapping, so that it can
   reassign the public UDP port to other purposes once all of the
   outstanding sessions for the mapping are deemed inactive.

3.1.1. Preserving Port Numbers

   Some NATs, when establishing a new UDP session, attempt to assign the
   same public port number as the corresponding private port number, if
   that port number happens to be available.  For example, if client A
   at address 10.0.0.1 initiates an outgoing UDP session with a datagram
   from port number 1234, and the NAT's public port number 1234 happens
   to be available, then the NAT uses port number 1234 at the NAT's
   public IP address as the translated endpoint address for the session.
   This behavior might be beneficial to some legacy UDP applications
   that expect to communicate only using specific UDP port numbers, but
   it is not recommended that applications depend on this behavior since
   it is only possible for a NAT to preserve the port number if at most
   one node on the internal network is using that port number.

   In addition, a NAT should NOT try to preserve the port number in a
   new session if doing so would conflict with the goal of maintaining a
   consistent mapping between public and private endpoint addresses.
   For example, suppose client A at internal port 1234 has established a
   session with external server S, and NAT A has assigned public port
   62000 to this session because port number 1234 on the NAT was not
   available at the time.  Now suppose port number 1234 on the NAT



Ford                                                           [Page 12]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


   subsequently becomes available, and while the session between A and S
   is still active, client A initiates a new session from its same
   internal port (1234) to a different external node B.  In this case,
   because an active mapping has already been established between client
   A's port 1234 and the NAT's public port 62000, this mapping should be
   maintained and the new session should also use port 62000 as the
   public port corresponding to client A's port 1234.  The NAT should
   NOT assign public port 1234 to this new session just because port
   1234 has become available: that behavior would not be likely to
   benefit the application in any way since the application has already
   been operating with a translated port number, and it would break any
   attempts the application might make to establish peer-to-peer
   connections using the UDP hole punching technique.

3.2. Maintaining Consistent Public/Private Mappings for TCP Ports

   For consistency with the behavior of UDP translation, it is suggested
   that NATs also maintain a consistent mapping between private and
   public (IP address, TCP port number) pairs for TCP connections, in
   the same way as described above for UDP.  Maintaining consistent
   mappings for TCP ports facilitates the operation of the simultaneous
   TCP open technique, which although not recommended in general for
   peer-to-peer applications, may be useful in controlled situations
   when the two endpoints are sufficiently well synchronized.
   Maintaining TCP endpoint mappings consistently may also increase the
   NAT's compatibility with other applications that initiate multiple
   TCP connections from the same source port.

3.3. Proxy Protocols

   Besides adopting the above recommendations to make a NAT's basic
   "transparent-mode" operation as peer-to-peer friendly as possible, it
   is helpful for NATs also to support proxy protocols that allow
   applications to request an explicitly managed presence on the public
   side of the NAT.  Unfortunately, several alternative protocols have
   been proposed with varying characteristics [SOCKS, RSIP, MIDCOM,
   UPNP], and as of this writing none of them have achieved clear
   acceptance or dominance in the Internet community.  Furthermore, it
   is not clear yet how well these protocols will work in the
   increasingly common "Twice NAT" situation where clients are located
   behind multiple levels of NAT, especially if the NATs are from
   different vendors, support different features and policies, and are
   under different administrative domains.  (In the common case, one is
   owned and managed by the ISP and the other by the end user.)  For
   these reasons, this document makes no attempt to explore this issue
   in detail or to recommend specific proxy protocols for NATs to
   implement.




Ford                                                           [Page 13]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


4. Security Considerations

   Using the UDP hole punching technique in peer-to-peer applications
   and supporting it in NATs should not create any new security issues.
   In particular, the technique does not require a NAT firewall to be
   "promiscuous" in any way about acceping incoming UDP traffic.  As
   long as outgoing UDP sessions are enabled and the firewall maintains
   consistent mappings between internal and external UDP ports, the
   firewall can still filter out all incoming UDP packets except those
   with (source IP, source port, destination IP, destination port)
   tuples that exactly match those of active sessions initiated from
   within the enclave.  Filtering incoming traffic aggressively while
   maintaining consistent mappings thus allows a firewall to be "peer-
   to-peer friendly" without compromising the standard firewall security
   principle of rejecting all unsolicited incoming traffic.

   It might be argued that maintaining a consistent internal/external
   port mapping can "leak" some information to the outside about the
   applications on the internal network, particularly about the
   relationships between different UDP sessions that cross the firewall
   boundary.  If the security requirements are so critical that such a
   subtle information channel is of concern, however, then the firewall
   almost certainly should not be configured to allow unrestricted
   outgoing UDP traffic in the first place.  Controlling information
   flow to this degree generally requires that the firewall only allow
   communication only via tightly-controllable application-level
   gateways, in which case the firewall can either implement the proper
   peer-to-peer communication behavior itself or disallow it entirely.

References

[BIDIR]    Peer-to-Peer Working Group, NAT/Firewall Working Committee,
           "Bidirectional Peer-to-Peer Communication with Interposing
           Firewalls and NATs", August 2001.
           http://www.peer-to-peerwg.org/tech/nat/

[KEGEL]    Dan Kegel, "NAT and Peer-to-Peer Networking", July 1999.
           http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html

[MIDCOM]   P. Srisuresh, J. Kuthan, J. Rosenberg, A. Molitor, and
           A. Rayhan, "Middlebox communication architecture and
           framework", RFC 3303, August 2002.

[NAT-APPL] D. Senie, "Network Address Translator (NAT)-Friendly
           Application Design Guidelines", RFC 3235, January 2002.

[NAT-PROT] M. Holdrege and P. Srisuresh, "Protocol Complications
           with the IP Network Address Translator", RFC 3027,



Ford                                                           [Page 14]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


           January 2001.

[NAT-TERM] P. Srisuresh and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
           Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC
           2663, August 1999.

[NAT-TRAD] P. Srisuresh and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
           Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
           January 2001.

[RSIP]     M. Borella, J. Lo, D. Grabelsky, and G. Montenegro,
           "Realm Specific IP: Framework", RFC 3102, October 2001.

[SOCKS]    M. Leech, M. Ganis, Y. Lee, R. Kuris, D. Koblas, and
           L. Jones, "OCKS Protocol Version 5", RFC 1928, March 1996.

[STUN]     J. Rosenberg, J. Weinberger, C. Huitema, and R. Mahy,
           "STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
           Through Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489,
           March 2003.

[TCP]      "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793, September 1981.

[UPNP]     UPnP Forum, "Internet Gateway Device (IGD) Standardized
           Device Control Protocol V 1.0", November 2001.
           http://www.upnp.org/standardizeddcps/igd.asp

Author's Address

   Bryan Ford
   Laboratory for Computer Science
   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
   77 Massachusetts Ave.
   Cambridge, MA 02139

   Phone: (617) 253-5261
   E-mail: baford@mit.edu
   Web: http://www.brynosaurus.com/

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are



Ford                                                           [Page 15]
 
draft-ford-natp2p-00.txt                                      April 2003


   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

































Ford                                                           [Page 16]
Journey of Life

July 28, 2011

Simulate unplug usb device on Linux (USB Reset)

Tether Blackberry 9700 on Linux (Debian/Ubuntu)

July 20, 2011

Windows 2003 Server Remote Desktop Local Drive Map

July 17, 2011

airos persistent directory

Add static route via script

July 16, 2011

openwrt make targets

Useful_Trunk_Rebuild_Make_Targets

July 14, 2011

sqlite 3 string to integer conversion, similar to C function atoi

July 12, 2011

Windows 2003, XP, recursive taking file and folders ownership and permissions

July 1, 2011

Reliable UDP Library

P2P NAT HOLE PUNCHING UDP
