draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-01.txt   draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-02.txt 
AVT A. Begen AVT A. Begen
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Updates: 3550 (if approved) C. Perkins Updates: 3550 (if approved) C. Perkins
Intended status: Standards Track University of Glasgow Intended status: Standards Track University of Glasgow
Expires: November 6, 2010 May 5, 2010 Expires: November 25, 2010 D. Wing
Cisco
May 24, 2010
Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Names Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Names
(CNAMEs) (CNAMEs)
draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-01 draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-02
Abstract Abstract
The RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Name (CNAME) is a The RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Name (CNAME) is a
persistent transport-level identifier for an RTP endpoint. While the persistent transport-level identifier for an RTP endpoint. While the
Synchronization Source (SSRC) identifier of an RTP endpoint may Synchronization Source (SSRC) identifier of an RTP endpoint may
change if a collision is detected, or when the RTP application is change if a collision is detected, or when the RTP application is
restarted, the CNAME is meant to stay unchanged, so that RTP restarted, the CNAME is meant to stay unchanged, so that RTP
endpoints can be uniquely identified and associated with their RTP endpoints can be uniquely identified and associated with their RTP
media streams. For proper functionality, CNAMEs should be unique media streams. For proper functionality, CNAMEs should be unique
within the participants of an RTP session. However, the within the participants of an RTP session. However, the existing
recommendations for choice of the RTCP CNAME provided in RFC 3550 are guidelines for choosing the RTCP CNAME provided in the RTP standard
insufficient to achieve this uniqueness. This memo updates the are insufficient to achieve this uniqueness. This memo updates these
guidelines in RFC 3550 to allow endpoints to choose unique CNAMEs. guidelines to allow endpoints to choose unique CNAMEs.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 25, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Choice of RTCP CNAME in Private Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Deficiencies with Earlier RTCP CNAME Guidelines . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Choosing an RTCP CNAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Persistent vs. Per-Session CNAMEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In Section 6.5.1 of [RFC3550], there are a number of recommendations In Section 6.5.1 of [RFC3550], there are a number of recommendations
for choosing the RTCP CNAME for an RTP endpoint. These recommend for choosing a unique RTCP CNAME for an RTP endpoint. However, in
that the CNAME is of the form "user@host" for multiuser systems, or practice, some of these methods are not guaranteed to produce a
"host" if the username is not available. The "host" part is unique CNAME. This memo proposes updated guidelines for choosing
specified to be the fully qualified domain name of the host from CNAMEs, superceding those presented in Section 6.5.1 of [RFC3550].
which the real-time data originates, or the numeric representation of
the IP address of the interface from which the RTP data originates
for hosts that do not have a domain name.
As noted in [RFC3550], the use of private network address space 2. Requirements Notation
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 [RFC2119].
3. Deficiencies with Earlier RTCP CNAME Guidelines
The recommendation in [RFC3550] is to generate the CNAME of the form
"user@host" for multiuser systems, or "host" if the username is not
available. The "host" part is specified to be the fully qualified
domain name (FQDN) of the host from which the real-time data
originates. However, FQDNs are not necessarily unique, and can
sometimes be common across several endpoints in large service
provider networks. Thus, the use of FQDN as the CNAME is strongly
discouraged.
For hosts that do not have a unique domain name, the "host" part of
the RTCP CNAME could be the numeric representation of the IP address
of the interface from which the RTP data originates. However, as
noted in [RFC3550], the use of private network address space
[RFC1918] can result in hosts having network addresses that are not [RFC1918] can result in hosts having network addresses that are not
globally unique. However, this problem is not solely with private globally unique. This can also occur with public IP addresses, if
network addresses, but may also occur with public IP addresses, where
multiple hosts are assigned the same public IP address and connected multiple hosts are assigned the same public IP address and connected
to a Network Address Translation (NAT) device to a Network Address Translation (NAT) device [RFC3022]. When
[I-D.miles-behave-l2nat]. When multiple hosts share the same IP multiple hosts share the same IP address, whether private or public,
address, using the IP address as the CNAME can lead to non-unique using the IP address as the CNAME leads to CNAMEs that are not
CNAMEs. necessarily unique.
[RFC3550] also notes that if hosts with private addresses and no [RFC3550] also notes that if hosts with private addresses and no
direct IP connectivity to the public Internet have their RTP packets direct IP connectivity to the public Internet have their RTP packets
forwarded to the public Internet through an RTP-level translator, forwarded to the public Internet through an RTP-level translator,
they may end up having non-unique CNAMEs. [RFC3550] suggests that they may end up having non-unique CNAMEs. [RFC3550] suggests that
such applications provide a configuration option to allow the user to such applications provide a configuration option to allow the user to
choose a unique CNAME, and puts the burden on the translator to choose a unique CNAME, and puts the burden on the translator to
translate CNAMEs from private addresses to public addresses if translate CNAMEs from private addresses to public addresses if
necessary to keep private addresses from being exposed. Experience necessary to keep private addresses from being exposed. Experience
has shown that this does not work well in practice. has shown that this does not work well in practice.
For all these reasons, this memo proposes alternative algorithms for 4. Choosing an RTCP CNAME
choosing CNAMEs.
2. Requirements Notation It is difficult, and in some cases impossible, for a host to
determine if there is a NAT between itself and its RTP peer.
Furthermore, even some public IPv4 addresses can be shared by
multiple hosts in the Internet. Thus, using the numeric
representation of the IPv4 address as the "host" part of the RTCP
CNAME is NOT RECOMMENDED.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 4.1. Persistent vs. Per-Session CNAMEs
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Choice of RTCP CNAME in Private Networks The RTCP CNAME can either be persistent across different RTP sessions
for an RTP endpoint; or it can be unique per session, meaning that an
RTP endpoint chooses a different CNAME for each RTP session.
It is a difficult task for a host to determine whether it resides Persistent CNAMEs: To provide a binding across multiple media tools
behind a NAT without the help of an external mechanism such as STUN used by one participant in a set of related RTP sessions, the CNAME
[RFC5389]. Furthermore, even some public IP addresses can be shared SHOULD be fixed for that participant. A persistent CNAME is also
by multiple hosts in the Internet. Thus, using the numeric useful to facilitate third-party monitoring, allowing network
representation of the IP address as the RTCP CNAME is NOT management tools to correlate the ongoing quality of service across
RECOMMENDED. multiple RTP sessions for fault diagnosis and to understand long-term
network performance statistics.
In order to meet the SHOULD requirement of Section 6.5.1 of Per-Session CNAMEs: The advantage of this approach is that the CNAME
[RFC3550], RTP endpoints SHOULD practice one of the following is unique for each RTP session. This prevents the CNAME from being
guidelines: used for traffic analysis. In other words, the RTP endpoints cannot
be identified based on their CNAMEs. This provides privacy, but
inhibits the use of RTCP as a tool for long-term network management
and monitoring.
o Given that IPv6 addresses are naturally unique, a host MAY use its 4.2. Guidelines
IPv6 address as the CNAME when using an IPv6 interface for RTP
communication. If the RTP endpoint is associated with a unique
local IPv6 unicast address [RFC4193], that address MAY be used as
the CNAME as well. Using IPv6 addresses as CNAMEs was originally
suggested in [RFC3550].
o A host that does not know its fully qualified domain name, and is RTP endpoints SHOULD practice one of the following guidelines in
configured with a private IP address on the interface it is using choosing RTCP CNAME:
for RTP communication, MAY use the numeric representation of the
layer-2 (MAC) address of the interface it is using for RTP
communication as the "host" part of its CNAME. For IEEE 802 MAC
addresses, such as Ethernet, the standard colon-separated
hexadecimal format is to be used, e.g., "00:23:32:af:9b:aa".
o A host MAY use its Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) [RFC4122] o Given that IPv6 addresses are naturally unique, an endpoint MAY
as the CNAME. use its IPv6 address as the "host" part of its CNAME regardless of
whether that IPv6 interface is being used for RTP communication or
not. If the RTP endpoint is associated with an IPv6 privacy
address [RFC4941] or a unique local IPv6 unicast address
[RFC4193], that address MAY be used as well. Using IPv6 addresses
as the "host" part of a CNAME was originally suggested in
[RFC3550].
This memo does not mandate a specific order in which these methods o An endpoint that does not know its fully qualified domain name,
should be practiced. A specific order would be only needed if an RTP and is configured with a private IP address on the interface it is
endpoint was expected to be comprised of multiple programs that using for RTP communication, MAY use the numeric representation of
independently needed to choose the same CNAME. Since this is not a the layer-2 (MAC) address of that interface as the "host" part of
common implementation technique, a specific order is not needed. its CNAME. For IEEE 802 MAC addresses, such as Ethernet, the
standard colon-separated hexadecimal format is to be used, e.g.,
"00:23:32:af:9b:aa".
4. Security Considerations o An endpoint MAY use its Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID)
[RFC4122] to generate the "host" part of its CNAME. The string
representation described in Section 3 of [RFC4122] should be used,
which results in a 288-bit string representation.
o To generate a unique CNAME for each RTP session, an endpoint MAY
perform SHA1-HMAC [RFC2104] on the concatenated values of the RTP
endpoint's initial SSRC, the source and destination IP addresses
and ports, and a randomly-generated value [RFC4086], and then
truncate the 160-bit output to 96 bits and finally convert the 96
bits to ASCII using Base64 encoding [RFC4648]. This results in a
128-bit printable CNAME. Note that the CNAME MUST NOT change if
an SSRC collision occurs, hence only the initial SSRC value chosen
by the endpoint is used.
Each of the techniques is equally effective in generating unique
CNAMEs, and an RTP application MAY choose any of these techniques to
use.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC3550] apply to this document as The security considerations of [RFC3550] apply to this document as
well. well.
5. IANA Considerations In some environments, notably telephony, a fixed CNAME value allows
separate RTP sessions to be correlated and eliminates the obfuscation
provided by IPv6 privacy addresses [RFC4941] or IPv4 NAPT [RFC3022].
Secure RTP (SRTP) [RFC3711] can help prevent such correlation by
encrypting Secure RTCP (SRTCP) but it should be noted that SRTP only
mandates SRTCP integrity protection (not encryption). Thus, RTP
applications used in such environments should consider encrypting
their SRTCP or generate a new CNAME value for each RTP session as
described in Section 4.
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations in this document. There are no IANA considerations in this document.
6. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Dan Wing who pointed out the concerns about cases where two Thanks to Marc Petit-Huguenin who suggested to use UUIDs in
hosts could share the same public IP address. Also, thanks to Marc generating CNAMEs.
Petit-Huguenin who suggested to use UUIDs as CNAMEs.
7. References 8. References
7.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally [RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122, Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
July 2005. July 2005.
7.2. Informative References [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997.
[RFC4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, [RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
October 2008. January 2001.
[I-D.miles-behave-l2nat]
Miles, D. and M. Townsley, "Layer2-Aware NAT",
draft-miles-behave-l2nat-00 (work in progress),
March 2009.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ali Begen Ali Begen
Cisco Cisco
181 Bay Street 181 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3
CANADA CANADA
Email: abegen@cisco.com Email: abegen@cisco.com
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 14
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ali Begen Ali Begen
Cisco Cisco
181 Bay Street 181 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3
CANADA CANADA
Email: abegen@cisco.com Email: abegen@cisco.com
Colin Perkins Colin Perkins
University of Glasgow University of Glasgow
Department of Computing Science Department of Computing Science
Glasgow, G12 8QQ Glasgow, G12 8QQ
UK UK
Email: csp@csperkins.org Email: csp@csperkins.org
Dan Wing
Cisco
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: dwing@cisco.com
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
82 lines changed or deleted 151 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/