1 / 8

RTSP & NATs

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.

cyrus-long
Download Presentation

RTSP & NATs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RTSP & NATs Magnus Westerlund / Ericsson Thomas Zeng / PacketVideo

  2. 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 (Don’t do them). • Give recommendations regarding RTSP for Firewalls.

  3. 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

  4. 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!

  5. Open Issue – Symmetric NAT • How to solve traversal for symmetric NATs? • Meet the determined goals of the solution. • Will Require Server extensions. • Solutions complexity.

  6. 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).

  7. 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!

  8. 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!

More Related