40 likes | 145 Views
SDP & RTP & NAT. Christian Huitema. Map ports TCP connection UDP stream (activity) Firewall variants One port, any peer One port, any “authorized” peer One port per peer Two problems Make NAT “UDP friendly”, Use random port numbers for RTP, RTCP. What NAT do. “Real” Internet. S.
E N D
SDP & RTP & NAT Christian Huitema
Map ports TCP connection UDP stream (activity) Firewall variants One port, any peer One port, any “authorized” peer One port per peer Two problems Make NAT “UDP friendly”, Use random port numbers for RTP, RTCP What NAT do “Real” Internet S 64.5.6.7:8901 NAT Natted area Node 10.0.0.1:2345
Two mapping variants Same port / Different port Two firewall variants Accept / Require “activity” Problem Different ports make “conferencing” very hard Firewall makes “call transfer” and “signalling” hard Not secure anyway… Recommendation Use same mapping, Don’t “firewall” the user. Can we publish it, please? Recommendation for NAT: draft-huitema-natreq4udp-00.txt “Real” Internet T S 64.5.6.7:???? 64.5.6.7:8901 NAT Natted area Node 10.0.0.1:2345
NAT map RTP, RTCP Oddity ? Sequencing ? Mapping can be learned Use “echo server” Proposal: document in SDP Allow RTP > odd port “a=rtcp=7654” AVT comment If deviate oddity, document two ports. Decision Last call ? Document mapping in SDP: draft-huitema-natreq4udp-00.txt “Real” Internet T E 64.5.6.7:8901 64.5.6.7:7654 NAT Natted area Node 10.0.0.1:3456 10.0.0.1:3457