idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-08.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 378 has weird spacing: '...eserved reser...' == Line 380 has weird spacing: '...Address an I...' == Line 416 has weird spacing: '... Length len...' == Line 419 has weird spacing: '...eserved reser...' == Line 421 has weird spacing: '...Address an I...' == (1 more instance...) -- The document date (January 22, 2015) is 3372 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-06 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5245 (Obsoleted by RFC 8445, RFC 8839) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 5770 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5201 (Obsoleted by RFC 7401) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5389 (Obsoleted by RFC 8489) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5766 (Obsoleted by RFC 8656) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 HIP Working Group A. Keranen 3 Internet-Draft J. Melen 4 Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson 5 Expires: July 26, 2015 January 22, 2015 7 Native NAT Traversal Mode for the Host Identity Protocol 8 draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-08 10 Abstract 12 This document specifies a new Network Address Translator (NAT) 13 traversal mode for the Host Identity Protocol (HIP). The new mode is 14 based on the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) methodology 15 and UDP encapsulation of data and signaling traffic. The main 16 difference from the previously specified modes is the use of HIP 17 messages for all NAT traversal procedures. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 26, 2015. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3.1. Relay Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3.2. Forwarding Rules and Permissions . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3.3. Relaying UDP Encapsulated Data and Control Packets . . . 5 59 3.4. Candidate Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3.5. Base Exchange via HIP Relay Server . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 3.6. Native NAT Traversal Mode Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 3.7. Connectivity Check Pacing Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 3.8. Connectivity Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 3.9. NAT Keepalives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 3.10. Handling Conflicting SPI Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 4. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 4.1. RELAYED_ADDRESS and MAPPED_ADDRESS Parameters . . . . . . 8 68 4.2. PEER_PERMISSION Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 4.3. HIP Connectivity Check Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 1. Introduction 80 The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis] is 81 specified to run directly on top of IPv4 or IPv6. However, many 82 middleboxes found in the Internet, such as NATs and firewalls, often 83 allow only UDP or TCP traffic to pass [RFC5207]. Also, especially 84 NATs usually require the host behind a NAT to create a forwarding 85 state in the NAT before other hosts outside of the NAT can contact 86 the host behind the NAT. To overcome this problem, different 87 methods, commonly referred to as NAT traversal techniques, have been 88 developed. 90 Two NAT traversal techniques for HIP are specified in [RFC5770]. One 91 of them uses only UDP encapsulation, while the other uses also the 92 Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245] protocol, 93 which in turn uses Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) 94 [RFC5389] and Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) [RFC5766] 95 protocols to achieve a reliable NAT traversal solution. 97 The benefit of using ICE and STUN/TURN is that one can re-use the NAT 98 traversal infrastructure already available in the Internet, such as 99 STUN and TURN servers. Also, some middleboxes may be STUN-aware and 100 could be able to do something "smart" when they see STUN being used 101 for NAT traversal. However, implementing a full ICE/STUN/TURN 102 protocol stack results in a considerable amount of effort and code 103 which could be avoided by re-using and extending HIP messages and 104 state machines for the same purpose. Thus, this document specifies a 105 new NAT traversal mode that uses HIP messages instead of STUN for the 106 connectivity checks, keepalives, and data relaying. 108 2. Terminology 110 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 111 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 112 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 113 2119 [RFC2119]. 115 This document uses the same terminology as [RFC5770] and the 116 following: 118 HIP data relay: 119 A host that forwards HIP data packets, such as Encapsulating 120 Security Payload (ESP) [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5202-bis], between two 121 hosts. 123 Registered host: 124 A host that has registered for a relaying service with a HIP data 125 relay. 127 3. Protocol Description 129 This section describes the normative behavior of the protocol 130 extension. Most of the procedures are similar to what is defined in 131 [RFC5770] but with different, or additional, parameter types and 132 values. In addition, a new type of relaying server, HIP data relay, 133 is specified. Also, it should be noted that HIP version 2 134 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis] (instead of [RFC5201] used in [RFC5770]) 135 is expected to be used with this NAT traversal mode. 137 3.1. Relay Registration 139 Relay registration procedure for HIP signaling is identical to the 140 one specified in Section 4.1 of [RFC5770]. However, a host MAY also 141 register for UDP encapsulated ESP relaying using Registration Type 142 RELAY_UDP_ESP (value [TBD by IANA: 3]). 144 If the HIP relay server supports relaying of UDP encapsulated ESP, 145 the host is allowed to register for a data relaying service (see 146 Section 3.3 at [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis]), and the relay has 147 sufficient relaying resources (free port numbers, bandwidth, etc.) 148 available, the relay opens a UDP port on one of its addresses and 149 signals the address and port to the registering host using the 150 RELAYED_ADDRESS parameter (see Section 4.1 for details). If the 151 relay would accept the data relaying request but does not currently 152 have enough resources to provide data relaying service, it MUST 153 reject the request with Failure Type "Insufficient resources" 154 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis]. 156 The registered host MUST maintain an active HIP association with the 157 data relay as long as it requires the data relaying service. When 158 the HIP association is closed (or times out), or the registration 159 lifetime passes without the registered host refreshing the 160 registration, the data relay MUST stop relaying packets for that host 161 and close the corresponding UDP port (unless other registered hosts 162 are still using it). 164 The data relay MAY use the same relayed address and port for multiple 165 registered hosts, but since this can cause problems with stateful 166 firewalls (see Section 5) it is NOT RECOMMENDED. 168 3.2. Forwarding Rules and Permissions 170 The HIP data relay uses a similar permission model as a TURN server: 171 before any ESP data packets sent by a peer are forwarded, a 172 permission MUST be set for the peer's address. The permissions also 173 install a forwarding rule, similar to TURN's channels, based on the 174 Security Parameter Index (SPI) values in the ESP packets. 176 Permissions are not required for the connectivity checks, but if a 177 relayed address is selected to be used for data, the registered host 178 MUST send an UPDATE message [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis] with a 179 PEER_PERMISSION parameter (see Section 4.2) with the address of the 180 peer and the outbound and inbound SPI values the host is using with 181 this peer. 183 When a data relay receives an UPDATE with a PEER_PERMISSION 184 parameter, it MUST check if the sender of the UPDATE is registered 185 for data relaying service, and drop the UPDATE if the host was not 186 registered. If the host was registered, the relay checks if there is 187 a permission with matching information (address, protocol, port and 188 SPI values). If there is no such permission, a new permission MUST 189 be created and its lifetime MUST be set to 5 minutes. If an 190 identical permission already existed, it MUST be refreshed by setting 191 the lifetime to 5 minutes. A registered host SHOULD refresh 192 permissions roughly 1 minute before the expiration if the permission 193 is still needed. 195 3.3. Relaying UDP Encapsulated Data and Control Packets 197 When a HIP data relay accepts to relay UDP encapsulated data, it 198 opens a UDP port (relayed address) for this purpose as described in 199 Section 3.1. If the data relay receives a UDP encapsulated HIP 200 control packet on that port, it MUST forward the packet to the 201 registered host and add a RELAY_FROM parameter to the packet as if 202 the data relay was acting as a HIP relay server [RFC5770]. 204 When a host wants to send a HIP control packet (such as a 205 connectivity check packet) to a peer via the data relay, it MUST add 206 a RELAY_TO parameter containing the peer's address to the packet and 207 send it to the data relay's address. The data relay MUST send the 208 packet to the peer's address from the relayed address. 210 If the data relay receives a UDP packet that is not a HIP control 211 packet to the relayed address, it MUST check whether there is a 212 permission set for the peer the packet is coming from (i.e., the 213 sender's address and SPI value matches to an installed permission), 214 and if there is, it MUST forward the packet to the registered host 215 that created the permission. Packets without a permission MUST be 216 dropped silently. 218 When a host wants to send a UDP encapsulated ESP packet to a peer via 219 the data relay, it MUST have an active permission at the data relay 220 for the peer with the outbound SPI value it is using. The host MUST 221 send the UDP encapsulated ESP packet to the data relay's address. 223 When the data relay receives a UDP encapsulated ESP packet from a 224 registered host, it MUST check whether there exists a permission for 225 that outbound SPI value. If such permission exists, the packet MUST 226 be forwarded to the address that was registered for the SPI value. 227 If no permission exists, the packet is dropped. 229 3.4. Candidate Gathering 231 A host needs to gather a set of address candidates before starting 232 the connectivity checks. One server reflexive candidate can be 233 discovered during the registration with the HIP relay server from the 234 REG_FROM parameter. 236 If a host has more than one network interface, additional server 237 reflexive candidates can be discovered by sending registration 238 requests with Registration Type CANDIDATE_DISCOVERY (value [TBD by 239 IANA: 4]) from each of the interfaces to a HIP relay server. When a 240 HIP relay server receives a registration request with 241 CANDIDATE_DISCOVERY type, it MUST add a REG_FROM parameter, 242 containing the same information as if this was a relay registration, 243 to the response. This request type SHOULD NOT create any state at 244 the HIP relay server. 246 It is RECOMMENDED that the host also obtains a relayed candidate from 247 a HIP data relay as described in Section 3.1. 249 Gathering of candidates MAY also be performed like specified in 250 Section 4.2 of [RFC5770] if STUN and TURN servers are available, or 251 if the host has just a single interface and there are no TURN or HIP 252 data relay servers available. 254 3.5. Base Exchange via HIP Relay Server 256 The Base Exchange is performed as described in Section 4.5 of 257 [RFC5770], except that "ICE candidates" are replaced by the 258 candidates gathered using procedures described in Section 3.4 260 3.6. Native NAT Traversal Mode Negotiation 262 A host implementing this specification SHOULD signal the support for 263 the native HIP NAT traversal mode by adding ICE-HIP-UDP NAT traversal 264 mode (value [TBD by IANA: 3]) in the NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE [RFC5770] 265 parameter. If this mode is supported by both endpoints, and is the 266 most preferred mode out of the all supported modes, further NAT 267 traversal procedures are performed as specified in this document. 268 Note that the results of the previously described methods, candidate 269 gathering and HIP data relay registration with HIP messages, can be 270 used also with the ICE-STUN-UDP NAT traversal mode. 272 3.7. Connectivity Check Pacing Negotiation 274 Since the NAT traversal mode specified in this document utilizes 275 connectivity checks, the check pacing negotiation MUST be performed 276 as specified in Section 4.4 of [RFC5770]. New connectivity check 277 transactions MUST NOT be started faster than once every Ta (the value 278 negotiated with the TRANSACTION_PACING parameter). 280 3.8. Connectivity Checks 282 The connectivity checks are performed as described in Section 4.6 of 283 [RFC5770] but instead of STUN packets, the connectivity checks are 284 HIP UPDATE packets. See Section 4.3 for parameter details. 286 As defined in [RFC5770], both hosts MUST form a priority ordered 287 checklist and start check transactions every Ta milliseconds as long 288 as the checks are running and there are candidate pairs whose tests 289 have not started. The retransmission timeout (RTO) for the 290 connectivity check UPDATE packets MUST be calculated as defined in 291 Section 4.6 of [RFC5770]. 293 All connectivity check request packets MUST contain a 294 CANDIDATE_PRIORITY parameter (see Section 4.3) with the priority 295 value that would be assigned to a peer reflexive candidate if one was 296 learned from this check. The UPDATE packets that acknowledge a 297 connectivity check requests MUST be sent from the same address that 298 received the check and to the same address where the check was 299 received from. 301 The acknowledgment UPDATE packets MUST contain a MAPPED_ADDRESS 302 parameter with the port, protocol, and IP address of the address 303 where the connectivity check request was received from. 305 After a working candidate pair, or pairs, have been discovered, the 306 controlling host MUST conclude the checks by nominating the highest 307 priority candidate pair for use. The pair MUST be nominated by 308 sending an ESP packet on the selected pair. If the controlling host 309 does not have any data to send, it SHOULD send an ICMP echo request 310 using the nominated pair to signal to the controlled host that it can 311 stop checks and start using the nominated pair. 313 If the connectivity checks failed the hosts SHOULD notify each other 314 about the failure with a CONNECTIVITY_CHECKS_FAILED Notify Message 315 Type [RFC5770]. 317 3.9. NAT Keepalives 319 To keep the NAT bindings towards the HIP relay server and the HIP 320 data relay alive, if a registered host has not sent any data or 321 control messages to the relay for 15 seconds, it MUST send a HIP 322 NOTIFY packet to the relay. Likewise, if the host has not sent any 323 data to a host it has security association and has run connectivity 324 checks with, it MUST send either a HIP NOTIFY packet or an ICMP echo 325 request using the same locators as the security association is using. 327 3.10. Handling Conflicting SPI Values 329 Since the HIP data relay determines from the SPI value to which peer 330 an ESP packet should be forwarded, the outbound SPI values need to be 331 unique for each relayed address registration. Thus, if a registered 332 host detects that a peer would use an SPI value that is already used 333 with another peer via the relay, it MUST NOT select the relayed 334 address for use. The host MAY restart the base exchange to avoid a 335 conflict or it MAY refrain from using the relayed candidate for the 336 connectivity checks. 338 Since the SPI space is 32 bits and the SPI values should be random, 339 the probability for a conflicting SPI value is fairly small. 340 However, a host with many peers MAY decrease the odds of a conflict 341 by registering more than one relayed address using different local 342 addresses. 344 4. Packet Formats 346 The following subsections define the parameter and packet encodings 347 for the new HIP parameters used for NAT traversal. UDP encapsulation 348 of the HIP and ESP packets and format of the other required 349 parameters is specified in Section 5 of [RFC5770]. 351 4.1. RELAYED_ADDRESS and MAPPED_ADDRESS Parameters 353 The format of the RELAYED_ADDRESS and MAPPED_ADDRESS parameters 354 (Figure 1) is identical to REG_FROM, RELAY_FROM and RELAY_TO 355 parameters. This document specifies only use of UDP relaying and 356 thus only protocol 17 is allowed. However, future documents may 357 specify support for other protocols. 359 0 1 2 3 360 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 361 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 362 | Type | Length | 363 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 364 | Port | Protocol | Reserved | 365 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 366 | | 367 | Address | 368 | | 369 | | 370 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 372 Type [TBD by IANA; 373 RELAYED_ADDRESS: 4650 374 MAPPED_ADDRESS: 4660] 375 Length 20 376 Port the UDP port number 377 Protocol IANA assigned, Internet Protocol number (17 for UDP) 378 Reserved reserved for future use; zero when sent, ignored 379 when received 380 Address an IPv6 address or an IPv4 address in "IPv4-Mapped 381 IPv6 address" format 383 Figure 1: Format of the RELAYED_ADDRESS and MAPPED_ADDRESS Parameters 385 4.2. PEER_PERMISSION Parameter 387 The format of the PEER_PERMISSION parameter is shown in Figure 2. 388 The parameter is used for setting up and refreshing forwarding rules 389 and permissions at the data relay for data packets. The parameter 390 contains one or more sets of Port, Protocol, Address, Outbound SPI 391 (OSPI), and Inbound SPI (ISPI) values. One set defines a rule for 392 one peer address. 394 0 1 2 3 395 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 396 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 397 | Type | Length | 398 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 399 | Port | Protocol | Reserved | 400 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 401 | | 402 | Address | 403 | | 404 | | 405 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 406 | OSPI | 407 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 408 | ISPI | 409 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 410 | | 411 | ... | 412 | | 413 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 415 Type [TBD by IANA; 4680] 416 Length length in octets, excluding Type and Length 417 Port the transport layer (UDP) port number of the peer 418 Protocol IANA assigned, Internet Protocol number (17 for UDP) 419 Reserved reserved for future use; zero when sent, ignored 420 when received 421 Address an IPv6 address, or an IPv4 address in "IPv4-Mapped 422 IPv6 address" format, of the peer 423 OSPI the outbound SPI value the registered host is using for 424 the peer with the Address and Port 425 ISPI the inbound SPI value the registered host is using for 426 the peer with the Address and Port 428 Figure 2: Format of the PEER_PERMISSION Parameter 430 4.3. HIP Connectivity Check Packets 432 The connectivity request messages are HIP UPDATE packets with a 433 CANDIDATE_PRIORITY parameter (Figure 3). Response UPDATE packets 434 contain a MAPPED_ADDRESS parameter (Figure 1). 436 0 1 2 3 437 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 438 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 439 | Type | Length | 440 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 441 | Priority | 442 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 444 Type [TBD by IANA; 4700] 445 Length 4 446 Priority the priority of a (potential) peer reflexive candidate 448 Figure 3: Format of the CANDIDATE_PRIORITY Parameter 450 5. Security Considerations 452 Same security considerations as with [RFC5770] apply also to this NAT 453 traversal mode. 455 If the data relay uses the same relayed address and port for multiple 456 registered hosts, it appears to all the peers, and their firewalls, 457 that all the registered hosts using the relay are at the same 458 address. Thus, a stateful firewall may allow packets pass from hosts 459 that would not normally be able to send packets to a peer behind the 460 firewall. Therefore, a HIP data relay SHOULD NOT re-use the port 461 numbers. If port numbers need to be re-used, the relay SHOULD have a 462 sufficiently large pool of port numbers and select ports from the 463 pool randomly to decrease the chances of a registered host obtaining 464 the same address that a another host behind the same firewall is 465 using. 467 6. Acknowledgements 469 This document re-uses many of the ideas proposed in various earlier 470 HIP NAT traversal related drafts by Miika Komu, Simon Schuetz, Martin 471 Stiemerling, Pekka Nikander, Marcelo Bagnulo, Vivien Schmitt, Abhinav 472 Pathak, Lars Eggert, Thomas Henderson, Hannes Tschofenig, and Philip 473 Matthews. 475 7. IANA Considerations 477 This section is to be interpreted according to [RFC5226]. 479 This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameter Types 480 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis] by assigning new HIP Parameter Type values 481 for the new HIP Parameters: RELAYED_ADDRESS, MAPPED_ADDRESS (defined 482 in Section 4.1), and PEER_PERMISSION (defined in Section 4.2). 484 This document also updates the IANA Registry for HIP NAT traversal 485 modes [RFC5770] by assigning value for the NAT traversal mode ICE- 486 HIP-UDP (defined in Section 3.6). 488 This document defines additional registration types for the HIP 489 Registration Extension [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis] that allow 490 registering with a HIP relay server for ESP relaying service: 491 RELAY_UDP_ESP (defined in Section 3.1); and performing server 492 reflexive candidate discovery: CANDIDATE_DISCOVERY (defined in 493 Section 3.4). 495 8. References 497 8.1. Normative References 499 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 500 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 502 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis] 503 Moskowitz, R., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson, 504 "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)", draft-ietf- 505 hip-rfc5201-bis-20 (work in progress), October 2014. 507 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5202-bis] 508 Jokela, P., Moskowitz, R., and J. Melen, "Using the 509 Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with 510 the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)", draft-ietf-hip- 511 rfc5202-bis-07 (work in progress), September 2014. 513 [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis] 514 Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) 515 Registration Extension", draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-06 516 (work in progress), September 2014. 518 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 519 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 520 May 2008. 522 [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment 523 (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) 524 Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April 525 2010. 527 [RFC5770] Komu, M., Henderson, T., Tschofenig, H., Melen, J., and A. 528 Keranen, "Basic Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Extensions 529 for Traversal of Network Address Translators", RFC 5770, 530 April 2010. 532 8.2. Informative References 534 [RFC5201] Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson, 535 "Host Identity Protocol", RFC 5201, April 2008. 537 [RFC5207] Stiemerling, M., Quittek, J., and L. Eggert, "NAT and 538 Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) 539 Communication", RFC 5207, April 2008. 541 [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, 542 "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, 543 October 2008. 545 [RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using 546 Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session 547 Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010. 549 Authors' Addresses 551 Ari Keranen 552 Ericsson 553 Hirsalantie 11 554 02420 Jorvas 555 Finland 557 Email: ari.keranen@ericsson.com 559 Jan Melen 560 Ericsson 561 Hirsalantie 11 562 02420 Jorvas 563 Finland 565 Email: jan.melen@ericsson.com