Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    RTSP & Nats: Magnus Westerlund / Ericsson Thomas Zeng / Packetvideo

    Uploaded by

    Hùng Đinh Thế
    The document discusses network address translation (NAT) traversal for the Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). It describes existing client-only and client-server NAT traversal approaches, and recommends solutions that support all NAT types by modifying both client and server. It identifies open issues around choosing a solution for symmetric NATs that allows servers behind NATs while mitigating denial-of-service attacks in a timely standardized manner. Potential solutions discussed include STUN, ICE, and DCCP, but more discussion is needed to select the best approach.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    RTSP & Nats: Magnus Westerlund / Ericsson Thomas Zeng / Packetvideo

    Uploaded by

    Hùng Đinh Thế
    46 views8 pages
    The document discusses network address translation (NAT) traversal for the Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). It describes existing client-only and client-server NAT traversal approaches, and recommends solutions that support all NAT types by modifying both client and server. It identifies open issues around choosing a solution for symmetric NATs that allows servers behind NATs while mitigating denial-of-service attacks in a timely standardized manner. Potential solutions discussed include STUN, ICE, and DCCP, but more discussion is needed to select the best approach.

    Original Title

    57 Mmusic Rtsp Nat

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses network address translation (NAT) traversal for the Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). It describes existing client-only and client-server NAT traversal approaches, and recommends solutions that support all NAT types by modifying both client and server. It identifies open issues around choosing a solution for symmetric NATs that allows servers behind NATs while mitigating denial-of-service attacks in a timely standardized manner. Potential solutions discussed include STUN, ICE, and DCCP, but more discussion is needed to select the best approach.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    46 views8 pages

    RTSP & Nats: Magnus Westerlund / Ericsson Thomas Zeng / Packetvideo

    Uploaded by

    Hùng Đinh Thế
    The document discusses network address translation (NAT) traversal for the Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP). It describes existing client-only and client-server NAT traversal approaches, and recommends solutions that support all NAT types by modifying both client and server. It identifies open issues around choosing a solution for symmetric NATs that allows servers behind NATs while mitigating denial-of-service attacks in a timely standardized manner. Potential solutions discussed include STUN, ICE, and DCCP, but more discussion is needed to select the best approach.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 8

    RTSP & NATs

    Magnus Westerlund / Ericsson Thomas Zeng / PacketVideo

    Purpose
    To describe how to traverse NATs and Firewalls with RTSP Describes several NAT traversal approaches
    Client only modifications = limited applicability. Client and server modifying = Support all NAT types. How to implement an RTSP ALG (Dont do them).

    Give recommendations regarding RTSP for Firewalls.

    Status
    Client side only or already available approaches that are documented:
    STUN (Cone NATs Only) TURN (DoS restrictions) RTP/RTCP tunneled in RTSP over TCP (TCP behavior)

    ALG for NATs and Firewalls


    Needs more work to be clear.

    Needs review

    Open Issue What are the Goals


    What goals should be meet for the symmetric NAT solution?:
    Allow Servers to be located behind NATs? Mitigate the RTP denial of service attack at the same time? How important is the timeframe to get a standardized solution? Select only one solution!

    Open Issue Symmetric NAT


    How to solve traversal for symmetric NATs?
    Meet the determined goals of the solution. Will Require Server extensions. Solutions complexity.

    Open Issue - Candidates


    Symmetric RTP
    Increased hijacking and DoS risk Will not allow for servers behind NATs without further extensions (STUN).

    STUN with server co-location


    DoS restrictions or worse security. (multi address NAT) Allow for servers behind NATs in some cases (full cone NAT).

    Open Issue - Candidates


    ICE for RTSP
    Mitigates DoS attack almost completely. Allows for serves behind almost any NAT constellation. Most complex.

    DCCP
    Will not allow for servers behind NATs. Mitigates DoS attack. Will not be ready and deployed in significant amount anytime soon. Needs further investigation. Will have its own NAT problems!

    Way Forward
    Continue discussion about which solution to choose on the mailing list. Update the draft on the client side schemes, ALG, Firewall, and NAT recommendations. When solution selected write necessary specification, plus motivation to choice. Please state your opinion!

    You might also like