Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: [tsv-area] BOF request under consideration: SAFE

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:26:45 +0200

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:09 PM
To: TSV Area; Behave WG; mmusic (E-mail)
Subject: [tsv-area] BOF request under consideration: SAFE

Hi,

We ADs have received a request for a BOF in Vancouver: SAFE -
Self-Address Fixing Evolution. See description below. I would appreciate
any feedback on this. For public discussion please use the SAFE mailing
list.

Post: [email-masked]
Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/safe

Draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wing-behave-nat-control-stun-u
sage-03.txt

SAFE - Self-Address Fixing Evolution
------------------------------------

Chairs:
  TBD

ICE and its companion protocol STUN have been successfully deployed on
the Internet for NAT traversal.  ICE and STUN have several
characteristics which contribute to their success:

  1. incremental deployment.  ICE and STUN are functional without any
     modifications to existing NATs.
  2. nested NATs.  ICE and STUN work when there are multiple NATs
     between a host and the Internet.
  3. topology unaware.  ICE and STUN are not configured with
     information about NATs, firewalls, or their locations -- only
     with the IP address of a server on the Internet.
  4. simple security model.  If a host behind a NAT is allowed to send
     a packet across the NAT, it is allowed to receive a response.
  5. works on routed networks, which allows operation in both
     enterprise networks and home networks.

Other NAT traversal protocols do not share these characteristics, which
hinders their widespread deployment.  Specifically,

  * incremental deployment is not possible with MIDCOM, NSIS-NSLP,
    UPnP, or Bonjour.  With all of these protocols, both the NAT
    and the endpoint have to support the same protocol.
  * nested NATs are not possible with UPnP or Bonjour.
  * topology awareness is required of MIDCOM.
  * security must be established between the controlling entity
    and the NAT for MIDCOM and NSIS-NSLP.
  * Both UPnP and Bonjour use broadcast packets which don't work
    well on routed networks.

However, a drawback of ICE/STUN is its chatty keepalive traffic, which
is a result of STUN not knowing the binding lifetime of its on-path
NATs.  This chattiness causes a burden on servers and consumes network
bandwidth, which is especially critical on wireless networks.  It is
desirable to reduce this chattiness while still retaining the important
characteristics of STUN and ICE.

This BoF is intended to discuss one proposed technique,
draft-wing-behave-nat-control-stun-usage, which nearly eliminates STUN's
keepalive chatter and still preserves the desirable characteristics of
STUN/ICE.

The purpose of this BoF is to create a working group for this effort.

Agenda:
  Introduction, Agenda ....................................  5
  Summary of existing NAT traversal techniques ............ 40
   (UPnP, NAT-PMP/Bonjour, MIDCOM techniques, NSIS-NSLP, ICE)
  draft-wing-behave-nat-control-stun-usage ................ 40
  Q&A ..................................................... 25
                                                    ----------
                                                    total: 110

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM/M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:07:25 +0300 (EEST)

>     enterprise networks and home networks.

Teredo also fulfills these characteristics (and has none of the 
drawbacks listed later).

I'm confident that the BOF proposers will be able to invent new 
drawbacks to exclude Teredo from consideration, though.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings