Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance (behave) ----------------------------------------------------- Charter Last Modified: 2009-10-13 Current Status: Active Working Group Chair(s): Dan Wing Dave Thaler Transport Area Director(s): David Harrington Lars Eggert Transport Area Advisor: David Harrington 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 and is usable with both IPv4 and IPv6, and capable of relaying between the two IP versions. Due to the WG's experience with translators and their behavior it has been given the following tasks to help 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 six 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 is intended to service a specific IPv4 network using either private or public IPv4 addresses. This scenario has different constraints compared to (1), e.g. the IPv4 hosts that are to be reachable over IPv6 can be enumerated. Therefore, 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. 5. An IPv6 network to an IPv4 network, i.e., perform translation between IPv6 and IPv4 for packets in uni- or bi-directional flows that are initiated from an IPv6 host towards an IPv4 host. The translation function is intended to service a specific IPv6 network of arbitrary size and a specific IPv4 network of arbitrary size (neither of which are the Internet). 6. An IPv4 network 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 translation function is intended to service a specific IPv6 network of arbitrary size and a specific IPv4 network of arbitrary size (neither of which are the Internet). 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 parts of ICMP that can be translated are also required to work across a translation solution. 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 Done Determine relative prioritization of the four translation cases. Documented in IETF74 minutes. Done 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. Documented in IETF74 minutes. Sep 2009 Submit to IESG: relaying of a TCP bytestream (std) Done Submit to IESG: relay protocol (std) Done Submit to IESG: TURN-URI document (std) Dec 2009 Submit to IESG: SCTP NAT behavior (BCP) Dec 2009 Submit to IESG: IPv6 relay protocol (std) Dec 2009 Submit to IESG: framework for IPv6/IPv4 translation (info) Dec 2009 Submit to IESG: stateless IPv6/IPv4 translation (std) Dec 2009 Submit to IESG: stateful IPv6/IPv4 translation (std) Dec 2009 Submit to IESG: DNS rewriting for IPv6/IPv4 translation (std) Jan 2010 Submit to IESG: FTP ALG for IPv6/IPv4 translation (std) Jan 2010 Submit to IESG: IPv6 prefix for IPv6/IPv4 translator (std) Mar 2010 Submit to IESG: large scale NAT requirements (BCP) Internet-Drafts: Posted Revised I-D Title ------ ------- -------------------------------------------- Mar 2006 Mar 2010 Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6 Nov 2007 Mar 2010 Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations Oct 2008 Dec 2009 Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation Dec 2008 Feb 2010 Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Resolution Mechanism Jun 2009 May 2010 IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm Jul 2009 Mar 2010 Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers Jul 2009 Mar 2010 DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers Jul 2009 May 2010 Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation Aug 2009 May 2010 IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators Dec 2009 May 2010 IPv6-to-IPv4 translation FTP considerations 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 RFC5597BCP Sep 2009 Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol RFC5766 PS Apr 2010 Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) RFC5769 I Apr 2010 Test Vectors for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) RFC5780 E May 2010 NAT Behavior Discovery Using Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)