The Alternative Network Address Types (ANAT) Semantics for the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework
RFC 4091
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(June 2005; No errata)
Obsoleted by RFC 5245
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Gonzalo Camarillo , Jonathan Rosenberg | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 4091 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Jon Peterson | ||
| Send notices to | mankin@psg.com, csp@csperkins.org | ||
Network Working Group G. Camarillo
Request for Comments: 4091 Ericsson
Category: Standards Track J. Rosenberg
Cisco Systems
June 2005
The Alternative Network Address Types (ANAT) Semantics
for the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document defines the Alternative Network Address Types (ANAT)
semantics for the Session Description Protocol (SDP) grouping
framework. The ANAT semantics allow alternative types of network
addresses to establish a particular media stream.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Scope and Relation with Interactive Connectivity
Establishment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. ANAT Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Offer/Answer and ANAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Camarillo & Rosenberg Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4091 ANAT Semantics June 2005
1. Introduction
A Session Description Protocol (SDP) [2] session description contains
the media parameters to be used in establishing a number of media
streams. For a particular media stream, an SDP session description
contains, among other parameters, the network addresses and the codec
to be used in transferring media. SDP allows for a set of codecs per
media stream, but only one network address.
The ability to offer a set of network addresses to establish a media
stream is useful in environments with both IPv4-only hosts and
IPv6-only hosts, for instance.
This document defines the Alternative Network Address Types (ANAT)
semantics for the SDP grouping framework [4]. The ANAT semantics
allow for the expression of alternative network addresses (e.g.,
different IP versions) for a particular media stream.
1.1. Scope and Relation with Interactive Connectivity Establishment
The ANAT semantics are intended to address scenarios that involve
different network address types (e.g., different IP versions). They
are not intended to provide alternative transport addresses with the
same network type. Systems that need to provide different transport
addresses with the same network type should use the SDP format
defined in ICE (Interactive Connectivity Establishment) [6] instead.
ICE is used by systems that cannot determine their own transport
address as seen from the remote end, but that can provide several
possible alternatives. ICE encodes the address that is most likely
to be valid in an 'm' line, and the rest of addresses as a= lines
after that 'm' line. This way, systems that do not support ICE
simply ignore the a= lines and only use the address in the 'm' line.
This achieves good backward compatibility.
We have chosen to group 'm' lines with different IP versions at the
'm' level (ANAT semantics) rather than at the a= level (ICE format)
in order to keep the IPv6 syntax free from ICE parameters used for
legacy (IPv4) NATs (Network Address Translators). This yields a
syntax much closer to vanilla SDP, where IPv6 addresses are defined
in their own 'm' line, rather than in parameters belonging to a
different 'm' line.
Additionally, ICE only allows us to provide a single primary address
when the peer does not support ICE. The ANAT semantics avoid
relegating certain types of addresses (e.g., IPv6 addresses) to only
be a secondary alternate to another address type (e.g., IPv4
addresses).
Camarillo & Rosenberg Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4091 ANAT Semantics June 2005
Furthermore, the separation between ANAT and ICE helps systems that
support IPv4 and IPv6 but that do not need to support ICE (e.g., a
multicast server).
2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for
compliant implementations.
3. ANAT Semantics
We define a new "semantics" attribute within the SDP grouping
framework [4]: ANAT (Alternative Network Address Types).
Media lines grouped using ANAT semantics provide alternative network
addresses of different types for a single logical media stream. The
entity creating a session description with an ANAT group MUST be
ready to receive (or send) media over any of the grouped 'm' lines.
The ANAT semantics MUST NOT be used to group media streams whose
network addresses are of the same type.
4. Preference
The entity generating a session description may have an order of
preference for the alternative network address types offered. The
identifiers of the media streams MUST be listed in order of
preference in the group line. For example, in the session
description in Section 6, the 'm' line with mid=1 has a higher
preference than the 'm' line with mid=2.
5. Offer/Answer and ANAT
An offerer using SIP [3] to send its offer SHOULD place the sdp-anat
option-tag [5] in a Require header field.
An answerer receiving a session description that uses the ANAT
semantics SHOULD use the address with the highest priority it
understands and set the ports of the rest of the 'm' lines of the
group to zero.
Camarillo & Rosenberg Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4091 ANAT Semantics June 2005
6. Example
The session description below contains an IPv4 address and an IPv6
address grouped using ANAT. The format corresponding to the mapping
of ICE into SDP [6] can be used in both 'm' lines to provide
additional addresses.
v=0
o=bob 280744730 28977631 IN IP4 host.example.com
s=
t=0 0
a=group:ANAT 1 2
m=audio 25000 RTP/AVP 0
c=IN IP6 2001:DB8::1
a= <ICE-encoded additional IPv6 addresses (and ports)>
a=mid:1
m=audio 22334 RTP/AVP 0
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a= <ICE-encoded additional IPv4 addresses (and ports)>
a=mid:2
7. Security Considerations
An attacker adding group lines, using the ANAT semantics, to an SDP
session description could make an end-point use only one out of all
the streams offered by the remote end, when the intention of the
remote-end might have been to establish all the streams.
An attacker removing group lines using ANAT semantics could make an
end-point establish a higher number of media streams. If the
end-point sends media over all of them, the session bandwidth may
increase dramatically.
It is thus strongly RECOMMENDED that integrity protection be applied
to the SDP session descriptions. For session descriptions carried in
SIP [3], S/MIME is the natural choice to provide such end-to-end
integrity protection, as described in RFC 3261 [3]. Other
applications MAY use a different form of integrity protection.
Camarillo & Rosenberg Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4091 ANAT Semantics June 2005
8. IANA Considerations
The IANA has registered the following new 'semantics' attribute for
the SDP grouping framework [4]:
Semantics Token Reference
--------------------------------- ----- ---------
Alternative Network Address Types ANAT [RFC4091]
ANAT has been registered in the SDP parameters registry under
Semantics for the "group" SDP Attribute.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.
[3] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[4] Camarillo, G., Eriksson, G., Holler, J., and H. Schulzrinne,
"Grouping of Media Lines in the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)", RFC 3388, December 2002.
[5] Camarillo, G. and J. Rosenberg, "Usage of the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) Alternative Network Address Types
(ANAT) Semantics in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC
4092, June 2005.
9.2. Informative References
[6] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A
Methodology for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
Multimedia Session Establishment Protocols", Work in Progress,
February 2005.
Camarillo & Rosenberg Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4091 ANAT Semantics June 2005
Authors' Addresses
Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
Jonathan Rosenberg
Cisco Systems
600 Lanidex Plaza
Parsippany, NJ 07054
US
EMail: jdrosen@cisco.com
Camarillo & Rosenberg Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4091 ANAT Semantics June 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Camarillo & Rosenberg Standards Track [Page 7]