[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

DISPATCH Working Group                                         A.Wang
Internet Draft                                           China Telecom
                                                                  B.Liu
                                                    Huawei Technologies
                                                               J.Uberti
                                                                 Google
                                                              Peng.Ding
                                                          China Telecom
Intended status: Standard Track                           March 18, 2018
Expires: September 17, 2018


            Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
                      draft-wang-dispatch-oars-00.txt


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 https://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 September 17, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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.

Abstract

    This document proposes a new relay-based NAT traversal architecture
    called OARS which could simplify the data communication process

<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
    between two hosts that locates behind some non-BEHAVE compliant
    [RFC4787] [RFC5382] NAT devices.  The key mechanism in OARS is the
    newly defined "Couple" message which allows the Relay servers to be
    easily incorporated into existing CGN/CDN nodes which are already
    deployed within the network in a distributed manner.
Table of Contents


   1. Introduction ................................................ 2
      1.1. Motivations ............................................ 2
      1.2. Relationship with TURN.................................. 5
   2. Conventions used in this document............................ 5
   3. Solution Overview ........................................... 5
      3.1. Reference Architecture of OARS.......................... 5
      3.2. Solution Rationale...................................... 6
         3.2.1. Get_RS_Token()..................................... 7
         3.2.2. Get_Optimal_Relay()................................ 7
         3.2.3. Get_Relay_Reflex()................................. 7
         3.2.4. Couple() .......................................... 7
         3.2.5. Data() ............................................ 7
   4. Detailed Example ............................................ 8
      4.1. Procedures of Communication between two IPv4 hosts...... 8
      4.2. Procedures of IPv4 and IPv6 Host Communication...........9
   5. OARS Benefits ............................................... 9
   6. OARS Deployment Considerations............................... 10
   7. Security Considerations...................................... 10
   8. IANA Considerations ......................................... 11
   9. Conclusions ................................................. 11
   10. Acknowledgements ........................................... 11
   11. References ................................................. 11
      11.1. Normative References................................... 11
      11.2. Informative References................................. 12

1. Introduction

1.1. Motivations

   This document proposes a new relay-based NAT traversal architecture
   called OARS based on the following motivations.

   1) Leverage ISPs' infrastructures

   Currently, the deployment of TURN [RFC5766] is very limited and most
   of the application providers use their own platform to transfer the
   data between two hosts that behind NATs and to translate the
   communication packets between two hosts in different address families.

   The relay devices deployed centrally by various application providers
   often lead to inefficient data transmit between two hosts and it must
<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
   deal with complex network layer problems which the application
   providers are not familiar with.

   On the other hand, service providers have deployed many CGN/CDN nodes
   in a distributed manner within their networks. If the service
   providers can use these CGN devices/CDN nodes as the relay devices
   for communication between two hosts behind NATs or that from
   different    address    family,    and    provide    their    data
   translation/forwarding   capability to the application providers, the
   host to host communication will be more efficient. Given most of the
   CGNs are capable of translating packets between IPv4 and IPv6, the
   adoption of IPv6 technology will also be accelerated.

   2) Simplify the communication procedures

   OARS needs less communication procedures than TURN of which the
   procedures are considered very complex to be integrated into the
   ISPs' infrastructure, for example:

   o TURN solution has to closely interact with ICE
   Within current TURN solution, there are scenarios where the ICE
   or other NAT-hole punching procedures must be included for the
   success  of  communication  via  TURN  servers.  The  key  point  is
   that  TURN  allocates  different  relay  transport  address-port
   pairs for different hosts.

   Each client must first use TURN allocation request to get their
   transport  relay  address-port  pairs,  and  then  must  use  ICE
   procedure  (connectivity  check)  or  other  similar  signaling  to
   punch  holes  for  these  transport  relay  addresses  on  the
   alongside NAT devices.  Or else the relayed UDP/TCP packet will
   be blocked.

   Even with the above procedures, there still exist some risks
   that  the  packets  be  rejected  by  TURN  server  due  to  the
   permission  list  that  created  by  client  via  "CreatePermission
   Request"  before  it  sending  data  to  the  peer.    In  order  to
   mitigate such issues, current TURN solution requires the TURN
   servers only check the IP address part of the relay transport
   address,  and  ignore  the  port  portion.  But  this  will  again
   introduce some attack risks because different host may share one
   public IP address when the CGN device is deployed within network.

   o IPv4/IPv6 Relay Address/Port Reservation and Allocation

<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
   Another  drawback  of  different  relay  transport  addresses  for
   different host is that the TURN server must reserve some IPv4/
   IPv6 address block for the allocation and plan the TCP/UDP port
   usage  for  each  host.    When  TURN  servers  are  deployed  in  a
   distribute manner (For example when they are incorporated into
   the CGN devices), there will be much coordination work to do
   for  the  address/port  reservation  and  allocation  on  the  TURN
   servers.

   o Simultaneous TCP/UDP connections burden on TURN server

   Current  TURN  solution  requires  the  TURN  servers  to  open  and
   listen on many TCP/UDP ports at the same time, Under TURN solution
   for TCP[RFC6062], each host requires two connections to the TURN
   server. This will increase the burden on TURN server and the
   complexity to incorporate them into the CGN/CDN devices.

   o Different procedures for TCP/UDP communication

   Current TURN solution adopts different procedures for the TCP
   and  UDP  communication  channel.    So  for  one  TURN  server  to
   provide  the  TCP/UDP  relay  function,  it  must  implement  two
   different procedures.  This again increases the complexity of
   the TURN server implementation, especially in CGN devices.

   o Communication complexity between two different TURN servers

   Current TURN solution cannot assure two hosts select the same
   TURN  server,  and  then  it  must  deal  with  the  communication
   situation  between  two  different  TURN  servers.    This  scenario
   has not been covered by the current TURN related drafts. The client
   must reuse the XOR-PEER-ADDRESS attribute to include the relay
   address of the peer to reach the second TURN server.

   On  the  other  hand,  because  the  hosts  select  their  own  TURN
   server, there is no mechanism to assure the relayed path is
   most  optimal  for  them.    The  application  latency  will  be
   increased when this occurs.


   OARS solution will simplify the above mentioned complexity and make
   the TCP/UDP data relay function be easily incorporated into the
   existing distributed CGN devices or other kinds distributed devices
   i.e. the CDN nodes etc.

<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
1.2. Relationship with TURN

   This  document  doesn't  intent  to  replace  TURN  with  OARS,  but
   consider OARS as a complementary solution along with TURN for some
   specific scenarios.

   If one SP wants to open its infrastructure to accelerate their
   customers' (mainly regarding to application providers) client-to-
   client communications within the SP's domain, OARS could be a good
   candidate.

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


   O Relay Selector: which is in charge of selecting a proper relay
   device (CGN or CDN nodes) for the communicating hosts behind NATs.
   Normally, the RS is a function located in the network's management
   plane and possibly a part of the NMS server

   O OARS: Operator-Assisted Relay Service. Compared with the relay
   services that implemented independently by each TURN client, OARS can
   simplify the relay procedures in central control mode via the
   assistance of network operator.

   o OARS Client: The client that initiated the Couple() message to bind
   two TCP/UDP sessions on one relay device or two different relay
   devices.
.
   o OARS Server: The server that implemented the Couple() message to
   bind two TCP/UDP sessions on one relay device or two different relay
   devices.


3. Solution Overview

3.1. Reference Architecture of OARS


                         +-----------+----------+
                         |           RS         |
                         |   (Relay Selector)   |
                         +-----------+----------+
<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
                         /           |          \
                       /             |            \
                     /               |              \
                   /                 |                \
   +------------------+    +---------+--------+    +------------------+
   |      CGN-1        |   |      CGN-X        |   |      CGN-2       |
   |  (OARS Server)    |   |  (OARS Server)    |...|   (OARS Server)  |
   +-------------+----+    +------------------+    +----+-------------+
                 |                                      |
                 |                                      |
                 |                                      |
            +----+----+                            +----+----+
            |         |                            |         |
            |   NAT   |                            |   NAT   |
            |         |                            |         |
            +----+----+                            +----+----+
                 |                                      |
            +----+---+                              +---+----+
            | Host A |                              | Host B |
            |(v4/v6) |                              |(v4/v6) |
            +--------+                              +--------+
          (OARS Client)                            (OARS Client)

                         Fig. 3-1: OARS Architecture

   As depicted in above figure, the application clients that located on
   hosts act as the OARS clients while the CGNs act as OARS Servers.
   There is a Relay Selector (RS) for choosing a proper CGN to relay
   traffic between the two hosts.  In practice, the RS could be a
   dedicated server or a function located in the management plane
   servers such as NMS server or SDN Controller.

   RS has the intelligent route selection capability to choose a proper
   CGN for a given host pair. It generate the communication token upon
   the request of Application server, transfer these tokens to the relay
   devices to authenticate and authorize the communication between OARS
   clients(host) and OARS server(Relay/CGN devices).

   BEHAVE compliant and non-BEHAVE compliant NAT traverse [RFC4787]
   [RFC5382] is supported in OARS.  IPv6 and IPv4 host communication is
   also supported.

3.2. Solution Rationale

   The solution could be briefly described in the following sections.
<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)

3.2.1. Get_RS_Token()

   When clients register to their server, they will get the ip address
   of appropriate Relay Selector from the service provider, together
   with the token for the further usage of relay(CGN device)service. The
   token  is  generated  dynamically  via  the  communication  between
   application server and RS, which is out the scope of this draft.

3.2.2. Get_Optimal_Relay()

   Upon  receiving  the  RS  information,  the  clients  will  send
   Get_Optimal_Relay(RS,AP_Reflex_Pair,Token) message to the RS, with
   the AP_Reflex_Pair(client's reflective address to the App server) and
   allocated token as the parameters, to let the RS select on optimal
   relay device for the clients.

3.2.3. Get_Relay_Reflex()

   Client will send the Get_Relay_Reflex(Optimal_Relay, Token) message
   to the optimal relay, get its reflective address to this relay, and
   exchange such information with the peer via the Application server.

3.2.4. Couple()

   Client                then                send                the
   Couple(Relay_A,Reflex_Relay_A,Relay_B,Reflex_Relay_B,Token)  message
   to the optimal relay, build the mapping table on such relay, with the
   relay address, the reflective address to them and token as the
   parameter.

3.2.5. Data()

   Client can now send data directly to relay via Data(Relay,Token)
   message. Upon receiving the user data, the relay will change the
   source and destination address of the data packet respectively
   according to the mapping table built by previous Couple message. The
   return data will follow the same procedure.

   The procedure is same regardless of the communication peer are
   located in the same SP or different SPs.





<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
4. Detailed Example

4.1. Procedures of Communication between two IPv4 hosts

   When one of the communication hosts located behind the symmetric NAT
   device, the host-to-host communication must via one relay device.
   Below are the key procedures of OARS solution, we use the Fig3-1 to
   describe the example.

   1) If Host A and Host B want to communicate with each other, they
      will send Get_RS_Token() message to the application server, to get
      the IPv4 address/port of RS and the token for further
      communication with the relay device.

   2) Host A and Host B will request the RS to select one optimal relay
      device for their communication, based on the host's reflective
      address to the Application server. In this example, we assume the
      CGN-1 is selected for Host A and CGN-2 is selected for Host B.

   3) Host A and Host B will send Get_Relay_Reflex message to CGN-1 and
      CGN-2 respectively, get their relay address to CGN[REFLX-Relay]
      and exchange them via the Application server.

   4) Host will send the Couple message to the optimal relay, which
      includes mainly the [REFLX-Relay] addresses of Host A and Host B
      and their communication protocol, here we assume they use TCP to
      communicate.

   5) Upon receiving the Couple message, the CGN device will form
      one forwarding table that look like below:

      +--------------------------------------------------------------+

      |Reflex_A|Relay_1|T_Relay_1|Reflex_B|Relay_2|T_Relay_2|Protocol|

      +--------------------------------------------------------------+

                 Table 5-1: Couple Table Example (symmetric case)

   6) Host A will send the application data to the relay transport
      address in CGN-1(Relay_1).

   7) CGN-1 device will look up the Couple table, use the source address
      of received packet(Reflex_A in this example) to get the
      reflex IPv4 address of Host B.

<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
   8) It then will change the source address of the packet to the relay
      transport address in CGN-2 device (Relay_2), the destination
      address of this packet to the IPv4 reflex address of Host
      B(Reflex_B), then encapsulated in the tunnel, with T_Relay_1 as
      the tunnel source address and T_Relay_2 as tunnel destination
      address. The translated and tunneled packet will be forwarded to
      CGN-2(Relay 2).

   9) CGN-2 device will decapsulate the packet, send the decapsulate
      packet to Reflex_B. This packet will pass the NAT device, be
      translated by the NAT and then be forwarded to the Host2.

   10)           The return traffic will be sent to CGN-2(Relay_2). Upon receiving
      the return packet, CGN-2(Relay_2) will change the source address
      to Relay_1, the destination address to Reflex_A, according to the
      mapping table, and then encapsulate it into one tunnel packet,
      with the T_Relay_2 as tunnel source address and T_Relay_1 as
      tunnel destination address.

   11)           Relay_1 will decapsulate the packet, send the decapsulate packet
      to Reflex_A. This packet will pass the NAT device, be translated
      by the NAT and then forward to the Host1.

4.2. Procedures of IPv4 and IPv6 Host Communication

   If Host A is one IPv4 node and Host B is one IPv6 node. The
   communication process is similar, except that the relay address of
   Host A is the IPv4 address of the CGN-1 and the relay address of the
   Host B is the IPv6 address of the CGN-2. Host A and Host B will not
   notice that they are talking to one node that in different address
   family.

   The mapping table is same except that the Reflex_A/Relay_1 is belong
    to IPv4 address family and the Reflex_B/Relay_2 is belong to IPv6
    address family. The T_Relay_1 and T_Relay_2 should be in the same
    address family, and are determined by the operator themselves.

5. OARS Benefits

   Comparing to TURN, OARS could provide following benefits:

   o Decoupled from ICE

   TURN is tightly coupled with ICE.  Operations like NAT punching,
   create permission .etc all require ICE connectivity check packets.
   Benefited from the couple operation, OARS doesn't necessarily need
   ICE interaction.

<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
   o Less Relay Address/Port Consumption and Management

   OARS doesn't need to allocate different address-port pair for each
   session initiated from the hosts.  Thus, it could obviously reduce
   the resource consumption and the human burden for planning the
   resource allocation.

   o Unified solution for TCP/UDP and IPv4(6)-IPv6(4) data relay
   OARS supports the data relay for the communication between two hosts,
   uses same mechanism for TCP and UDP transport protocol, even for the
   communication between different address families.

   o Support for optimal relay selection

   Because  of  the  central  deployed  RS  could  have  the  whole
   network's  routing/path  knowledge,  OARS  is  more  likely  to
   achieve  an  optimal  relay  (OARS  server)  selection  based  on
   various information such as the reflective transport addresses
   of  the  two  communicating  peers,  the  link  usage  information
   between two peers and the load status of the candidate TURN-
   Lite servers etc.

   With the RS's knowledge, OARS is also more likely to achieve better
   relay selection for some specific requirements. For example, if one
   peer wants to hide its ip address to protect its privacy, the RS in
   OARS architecture could possibly select one OARS server that located
   far away from the host.

6. OARS Deployment Considerations

   The OARS Server can be deployed in distributed manner.  The most
   appropriate devices for incorporating this function are the CGN
   devices that have been deployed distributed by the service provider.
   Each  distributed  OARS  Server  has  one  unique  public  IPv4/IPv6
   transport address.

   The  RS  can  select  the  appropriate  OARS  Server  based  on  the
   proximity of the OARS server with the communication hosts and   can
   also use other criteria to influence the selection procedure, as
   described in Section 3.

7. Security Considerations

   The additional requirement of OARS is authenticating the messages
   between the OARS Client, RS and Relay device. Currently, we use the
<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
   RS allocated token to accomplish this task. Because such token is
   allocated  dynamically,  such  security  risks  can  be  mitigated
   accordingly.

8. IANA Considerations

   TBD.

9. Conclusions

   Currently, the communication between two hosts that located behind
   NAT devices, especially that behind the symmetric NAT devices is
   emerging. With the development of IPv6 technology, the communication
   between two hosts that in different address families needs also be
   considered. Under the OARS architecture, the communication requests
   for IPv4/IPv4, IPv4/IPv6 scenario can be met in one general solution.
   Such solution can alleviate the burden of various CP/SP to deploy the
   TURN server by themselves, exploit and open the capabilities of CGN
   device that deployed by service provider to the third party(CP/SP),
   make the host-to-host communication more efficient.

10. Acknowledgements

   Many valuable comments were received from Brandon Williams, Oleg
   Moskalenko, Jonathan Rosenberg, and Dan Wing etc.

11. References


11.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, July 1997.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
   June 1999.

   [RFC5389]  Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
   "Session  Traversal  Utilities  for  NAT  (STUN)",  RFC  5389,
   October 2008.

   [RFC5766]  Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
   Relays   around   NAT   (TURN):   Relay   Extensions   to   Session
   Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010.


<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
11.2. Informative References


   [RFC4787]  Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
   (NAT)  Behavioral  Requirements  for  Unicast  UDP",  BCP  127,
   RFC 4787, January 2007.

   [RFC5382]  Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
   Srisuresh,  "NAT  Behavioral  Requirements  for  TCP",  BCP  142,
   RFC 5382, October 2008.

   [RFC6062]  Perreault, S. and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays
   around   NAT   (TURN)   Extensions   for   TCP   Allocations",   RFC
   6062, November 2010.





Authors' Addresses

      Aijun Wang
      China Telecom
      Beiqijia Town, Changping District
      Beijing, 102209
      Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn


      Bing Liu
      Huawei Technologies
      Q14, Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Road, Hai-Dian District
      Beijing, 100095
      P.R. China
      Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com


      Justin Uberti
      Google
      747 6th Ave S
      Kirkland, WA  98033
      USA
      Email: justin@uberti.name






<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft  Operator-Assisted Relay Service Architecture (OARS)
      Peng Ding
      China Telecom
      Beiqijia Town, Changping District
      Beijing, 102209
      Email: dingpeng.bri@chinatelecom.cn












































<Wang,Liu,Uberti&Ding> Expires September 17, 2018              [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/