Re: [MMUSIC] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5245 (3619)

[Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ashish,

Peer Reflexive candidate discovery (see, e.g., Sections 7.1.3.2.1 and 
7.2.1.3. of RFC 5245) should take care of that case.


Cheers,
Ari

On 5/14/13 7:21 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5245,
> "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5245&eid=3619
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Ashish Kundu <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: Section 4, 5
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> Missed candidate pair in ICE standard
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Scenario: X is caller, Z is callee. X is behind a non-full-cone (such as symmetric) NAT, Z is behind a full-cone NAT.
>
> ICE standard: Section 2.1 of RFC5245 describes the addresses that are collected as candidate addresses: (local address, server-reflexive address, TURN relay address).  For X: (X:x, X1:x1, Yx:yx), and for Z: (Z:z, Z1:z1, Yz:yz).
>
> Missed candidate pair in ICE standard:
> 1. X:x sends a connection check message to the Z1:z1 (as part of the process in Section 2.2 of the standard)
> 2. Since X is behind a non-full cone NAT such a symmetric one, NAT of X maps X:x to X2:x2, sends the message to Z1:z1
> 3. Z is behind a full-cone NAT, so packets received at Z1:z1 address is forwarded to Z:z by the NAT
>
> Since X is behind a non-full cone NAT such a symmetric one and Z is behind a full-cone NAT, connection from X:x to Z1:z1 would be via a server-reflexive address X2:x2 of X, which is not a candidate address for X as specified by ICE. X2:x2 should be a candidate address of X, which however can only be determine when X sends a message to Z. The pair (X2:x2, Z1:z1) provides a direct connection option between X and Y.
>
> Conditions on which X2:x2 is a valid candidate address:
> 1. One of the peers (Z) is behind a full-cone NAT, else step 3 above does not succeed.
> 2. X2:x2 is unique, i.e., different from X1:x1 (already covered by Section 2.1) if and only if one of the peers is  behind a non-full-cone NAT.
>
> So I think there should be two stages in the candidate collection process:
> A: Section 2.1 -- candidate addresses independent of the other clients
> B: collection of the candidate pairs with respect to the peer, such as X2:x2 and Z2:z2, if any.
>
> B consists of the following steps including 1, 2, and 3:
> 4. Z:z determines if X2:x2 from which it received the message is a different address than in the candidate set of X.
> 5. If 4 is true, then send an OK message to X2:x2 that it received the message with X2:x2 XOR-encoded.
> 6. X:x receives the OK message in 4, then X:x determines X2:x2 as its new candidate address.
>
> If X:x decides to establish the connection via X2:x2, it sends ACK message to Z2:z2.
>
> Notes
> -----
> This feedback for improvement of ICE candidate gathering and decision process was   sent to Dr. Rosenberg on Nov 09, 2012. However, since I have not received any response from him over my next two followups and this e-mail, I thought it should be reported via this method.
>
> This is not an error mesage, but a method to improve the candidate gathering and decision process of ICE.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5245 (draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols
> Publication Date    : April 2010
> Author(s)           : J. Rosenberg
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Multiparty Multimedia Session Control
> Area                : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>