IETF68 P2PSIP NAT Traversal Matthews

The NAT Traversal Problemin P2PSIP: 

The NAT Traversal Problem in P2PSIP Bruce Lowekamp (SIPeerior) Philip Matthews (Avaya)

NATs cause problems for P2PSIP overlays: 

NATs cause problems for P2PSIP overlays NAT NAT NAT NAT About 90% of NATs will drop inbound packets for a peer unless there is a previously-established 'connection' with the sender.

NAT Traversal vs. Msg Type: 

NAT Traversal vs. Msg Type P2PSIP will have (at least) 3 different message types: Peer/Client Protocol msgs SIP msgs RTP (or other media transport protocol) msgs For RTP (or other media protocol), use ICE and STUN to establish direct media stream For SIP and Peer/Client Protocol msgs, problem is more complex. Here, two solutions have been proposed: The 'superpeer' approach The 'fully-distributed' approach These solutions provide traversal and/or routing for peer/client and SIP messages across the overlay and can provide relay for RTP if needed.

The “Superpeer” solution: 

The 'Superpeer' solution O S O O NAT NAT NAT S O NAT O S Peers with public IP addresses and other ‘good’ properties are promoted to 'superpeers' (S). These peers can freely exchange messages with each other. Each 'ordinary peer' (O) establishes a Peer Protocol connection to an ordinary peer. These peers can exchange messages directly with its superpeer, and indirectly with other peers with the help of its superpeer.

The “Fully-Distributed” approach: 

The 'Fully-Distributed' approach NAT NAT NAT NAT Each peer establishes a small number of Peer Protocol connections to other peers (a partial mesh). A message may traverse multiple hops to get to its destination.

Example: Fully-Distributed approach w/ Chord: 

Example: Fully-Distributed approach w/ Chord Chord uses exponentially spaced entries in finger table. Each peer uses 'greedy routing' to route a message to its neighbor that is closest to the final destination. Establish connections through NATs to make connection table match DHT routing.

Using ICE to Open New Connections: 

Using ICE to Open New Connections NAT NAT Initially inbound connections are rejected Proxy INVITE with ICE sdp through established connection to establish new {peer protocol, SIP, RTP} connection New connection now established 1 2 3

Comparison of approaches: 

Comparison of approaches Superpeer Establish connections with an Outbound-like scheme? (Pro) 'Classic' scheme used by many P2P systems today (Con) Requires there be enough peers eligible for superpeer status. May limit DHT to superpeers? Need mechanism to assign ordinary peers to superpeers Fully-Distributed Establish connections using SIP signaling with ICE. (Con) No operational experience w/ approach. (Pro) No requirement that some peers have public IP addresses. (Pro) No limits on DHT participation? (Con) May require up to Log2 N hops.

More on Routing (either approach): 

More on Routing (either approach) Direct Routing. Send msg directly to destination. May work in some cases. Recursive Routing Send msg to neighbor nearest to destination. Ask neighbor to forward msg for you. Iterative Routing Send msg to neighbor nearest to destination. Neighbor replies with a redirect to another peer U. Use direct or recursive routing to set up a connection to peer U. Repeat.

Establishing a Peer Protocol Connection: 

Establishing a Peer Protocol Connection Peer X Peer U Peer V Peer Y INVITE (To:Y; R-D:Proxy) 200 OK ACK ICE Connnectivity Checks Direct PeerProtocol Connection Established INVITE (Replaces) 200 OK ACK BYE 200 OK [See draft-matthews-p2psip-bootstrap-mechanisms for how first connection might be established.]