[rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Thu, 02 August 2012 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F12921E811B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.487
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S0ZOv994eGss for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF4311E81B1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=798; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1343929625; x=1345139225; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=0r6mI9D6KTFWhOT1XsJCfchm1xXo+GaVGhgpiYGt1Wk=; b=MIYJTEEEJKxFVokEYtNMFqXbNDOKIF53WLHB2dGGAsp2VysOGXighyAs kmLUAgmkpuDKp4luQ8yMpiq+fm9ztpEwYTR1TDLlDqV7lQsYsnwincuTh mIIW1cu9nbUgIxj/WxZWspGW5dSFL5ZJkmfh/OYWh4hvFV7EVXiWPZa7i 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjMFAPy7GlCrRDoH/2dsb2JhbABFhTSkKI89gQeCJwgKARcQTAUYUCMcAQQeF4dqDJs6gSigVI8ygxwDiE2FDIkCjROBZoJ/
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,702,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="53891508"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2012 17:45:04 +0000
Received: from dwingWS (sjc-vpn5-1740.cisco.com []) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q72Hj4HO011618 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:45:04 GMT
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:45:03 -0700
Message-ID: <038b01cd70d6$8c5bc870$a5135950$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac1w1ovfvzUgFxvbR0qnhkeGI2kOuA==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:47:06 -0000

In today's RTCWEB meeting I said that NAT heuristics do not work reliably,
especially if a NAT is busy (high CPU or lots of ports consumed), but there
are other situations with a NAT that cause heuristics to be inaccurate.  The
IETF document regarding this is http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5780, and be
sure to read its Applicability Statement in Section 1,

An explicit protocol, such Port Control Protocol (PCP, draft-ietf-pcp-base)
is the only reliable way to communicate with a NAT and reduce application
keepalive traffic.  Several of us have noticed the need to document exactly
how PCP can be reliably used to reduce UDP keepalive traffic.  We will write
down those details before the next IETF, probably in an Internet Draft.