NAT Working Group D. Senie INTERNET-DRAFT Amaranth Networks Inc. Category: Informational September 1999 Expires in six months NAT Friendly Application Design Guidelines draft-ietf-nat-app-guide-02.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. Preface: While many common Internet applications will operate cleanly in the presence of Network Address Translators, others suffer from a variety of problems when crossing these devices. This document discusses those things which application designers might wish to consider when designing new protocols. Guidelines are presented herein to help ensure new protocols and applications will, to the extent possible, be compatible with NAT. 1. Introduction Other documents which describe Network Address Translation (NAT) discuss the Terminology and Considerations [Srisuresh1] and Protocol Issues [Holdrege] or discuss the preceived implications of NAT [Hain]. All of those relate to various issues with the NAT mechanism and its effects on protocols which already exist. It is the focus of this document to instruct authors of new protocols what to think about when designing new protocols such that special handling is not required at NAT gateway points. Senie [Page 1] Internet-Draft NAT Friendly Application Design September 1999 When a protocol is unable to pass cleanly through a NAT, the use of an Application Level Gateway (ALG) can still permit operation of the protocol. Depending on the encoding used in a protocol, the ALG may be difficult or easy to construct. While adjunct to NAT, the formulation of protocols which cannot directly operate through NAT should be considered such that the ALG design may be simple and automated. ALGs typically operate inside small routers along with the NAT component. Ideally, the ALG should be simple and not require excessive computation or state storage. The same issues in application design which create issues for NAT (and thus can require ALG support) are also issues for firewalls. An application designer would do well to keep this in mind, as any protocol which does require special handling by NAT or firewall products will be more difficult to deploy than those which require no special handling. 2. Discussion Network Address Translation presents a challenge to some existing applications. It should be possible for developers of new applications to avoid problems if they understand the issues involved. This document aims to provide the application designer with information on what to do, and what to avoid, when building applications. The proliferation of NAT, especially in homes and small offices cannot be dismissed. The emerging technologies for providing high bandwidth to these types of locations often allow only a single IP address per location. As such NAT is a clear choice for connecting more than a single system per location. Clearly the most common problem associated with NAT implementations is the passing of addressing data between stations. Where possible, applications should find alternatives to such schemes. Studying a few existing protocols will serve to highlight the different approaches possible. Two common forms of Traditional NAT exist. With Basic NAT, only the IP addresses of packets are altered by the NAT implementation. Many applications will operate correctly with Basic NAT. The other common form is Network Address Port Translation. With NAPT, both the IP addresses and the source and destination ports (for TCP and UDP) are potentially altered by the gateway. As such, applications which pass only port number information will work with Basic NAT, but not with NAPT. Application designers should ensure compatability with NAPT, as this Senie [Page 2] Internet-Draft NAT Friendly Application Design September 1999 form of NAT is the most widely deployed. This is also the form of NAT which will likely see the greatest penetration in homes and small offices. 3. Recommendations and Examples When possible, applications designers should strive to avoid the necessity of ALG functions in NAT implementations. Since the same issues apply to firewalls, application designers have added incentive to consider these recommendations. Applications which work in such fashion as to not need ALG support will be much easier to deploy, and have the greatest chance of operation on a broad spectrum of NAT implementations. Each of the areas called out below are examples of issues to consider when building an application. This list is likely not comprehensive, but does cover a number of important issues and considerations. 3.1 Recommendations for NAPT As many of the issues specifically address NAPT issues, this section will group these issues. NAPT is the most common form of NAT in actual deployment in routers and host software, especially in smaller offices and home offices. 3.1.1 Avoid Session Bundles Independent sessions, such as used by HTTP, are preferred to protocols which attept to manage a bundle of related sessions, such as FTP. In the FTP protocol, port information is passed over one TCP connection and is used to construct a second TCP connection for passing the actual data. While using a separate connection to pass the files being transferred makes determination of the end of data quite simple, other schemes could be envisioned. The HTTP protocol, for example, uses a header and content length approach to passing data. In this model, all data is transferred over the single TCP connection, with the header portion indicating the length of the data to follow. HTTP has evolved to allow multiple objects to be passed on a single connection (thereby cutting the connection establishment overhead). Clearly a new file transfer function could be built that would perform most of the functions of FTP without the need for additional TCP connections. Senie [Page 3] Internet-Draft NAT Friendly Application Design September 1999 The goal is to keep to single connections where possible. This keeps us from needing to pass addressing information of any sort across the network. 3.1.2. Session Bundles Originate From Same End Origination of connections is an important consideration. Where possible, the client should originate all connections. The FTP protocol is the most obvious example, where by default the server opens the data connection to a port on the client (the client having specified the port number via a PORT command over the control TCP session). As pointed out in [Bellovin], the use of the passive open option in FTP (PASV) remedies this situation as the client is responsible for opening the connection in this case. With client-opened connections, the standard functions of NAPT will process the request as it would any other simple TCP connection, and so an ALG is not required. In cases where session bundles are unavoidable, each session in the bundle should originate from the same end station. 3.1.3. TCP preferred over UDP NAPT gateways must track which sessions are alive, and flush old sessions. TCP has clear advantages in this area, since there are specific beginning and end of session indicators in the packets (SYN and FIN packets). While UDP works for some types of applications with NAT, there can be issues when that data is infrequent. Since there is no clean way to know when an end station has finished using a UDP session, NAT implementations use timeouts to guess when a UDP session completes. If an application doesn't send data for a long period of time, the NAT translation may time out. Protocols other than TCP and UDP are workable with simple NAT in many cases, provided they are not carrying addressing information. For NAPT implementations Use of any protocols other than TCP and UDP should be discouraged. 3.1.4. Address Bindings Not Guaranteed Applications should not assume bindings will be maintained from one session to another. An example of this is RSVP, which forms one connection to reserve the resources, then the actual session for which resources were reserved is started. The sessions do not necessarily overlap. There is no guarantee that the NAT Senie [Page 4] Internet-Draft NAT Friendly Application Design September 1999 implementation will keep the binding association. As such, applications which rely on subsequent sessions being mapped to the same destination system may not function without an ALG. 3.2 Issues and recommendations for NAT If only Basic NAT implementations are involved, not NAPT, then many of the issues above do not apply. This form of NAT is not a panacea. In this case many of the issues still remain, and many protocols will not function correctly without assistance. 3.2.1. Use IP and TCP/UDP Headers Alone Applications which use only the information in the IP and TCP or UDP headers for communication (in other words, do not pass any additional addressing information in the payload of the packets), are clearly easier to support in a NAT environment. Where possible, applications designers should try to limit themselves in this area. The X windowing system, for example, uses fixed port numbers to address X servers. With X, the server (display) is addressed via ports 6000 through 6000 + n. These map to hostname:0 through hostname:n server displays. Since only the address and port are used, the NAT administrator could map these ports to one or more private addresses, yielding a functioning solution. The X example, in the case of NAPT, requires configuration of the NAT implementation. This results in the ability for no more than one station inside the NAT gateway to use such a protocol. This approach to the problem is thus OK for NAT but not recommended for NAPT environments. 3.3 Issues and Recommendations affecting both NAT and NAPT 3.3.1. Applications Requiring End-to-End IPSec Will Fail Use of IPSec for end to end security will not function in the presence of a NAT implementation. Application designers may want to explore the use of TLS as a mechanism which will traverse NAT cleanly. See [Srisuresh2] for additional discussion of the interaction of NAT with security mechanisms. Future work is under consideration which could offer compatability between NAT and IPSec, but is outside the scope of this document. 3.3.2. Use DNS Names, Not IP Addresses In Payload Senie [Page 5] Internet-Draft NAT Friendly Application Design September 1999 Applications should take care to use fully-qualified domain names, rather than IP addresses when referring to IP endpoints. When endpoints are across a NAT gateway, private addresses must not be allowed to leak to the other endpoint. An example of where this can happen today is with the HTTP and HTML protocols. It is possible for web pages to be specified with numeric IP addresses, rather than with names, for example http://192.168.1.10/index.html could be used as a URL, but would likely create a problem if this address is on a server located behind a NAT gateway. Users outside the gateway would not be able to reach the address 192.168.1.10, and so would not see the page. Further exacerbating the problem is the possibility of duplicate addresses between realms. If a server offers a link with a private address space IP address embedded within it, such as 192.168.1.10, the page referenced may resolve to a system on the local network the browser is on, but would be a completely different server. The resulting confusion to end users would be significant. Sessions involving multiple NAT implementations would be exceptionally vulnerable to address reuse issues of this sort. 3.3.3. Multicast Or Broadcast Service Location Problematic The use of multicast or broadcast packets for service location will cause some difficulty in conjunction with NAT. Some issues exist when such services are used with routers without NAT as well. In some cases helper functions in routers perform a relay of these broadcasts. In effect, these are a type of ALG function. In the NAPT case, attached networks can appear like a single end stations. Devices behind a NAPT system are in essence behind a router, though the rules of forwarding are not the same as a router. 3.4 Performance Implications of NAT and NAPT Implementations In general, single sessions are preferred Over multiple sessions. In NAPT implementations, resource utilization on the NAT gateway should be considered. An application which opens and closes many TCP connections, for example, will use up more resources on the NAT router than a similar application which performs all transfers over a single TCP connection. HTTP 1.0 opened a connection for each object on a web page, whereas HTTP 1.1 permits the TCP session to be held open for additional objects which may need to be transferred. Clearly the latter imposes a lower overhead on the NAT gateway, as it is only maintaining state on a single connection instead of multiple connections. Senie [Page 6] Internet-Draft NAT Friendly Application Design September 1999 New session establishment will typically remain a software function even in implementations where the packet-by-packet translation work is handled by hardware forwarding engines. While high-performance NAT boxes may be built, protocols which open many sessions instead of multiplexing will be slower than those which do not. Applications with different types of data, such as interactive conferencing, require separate streams for the different types of data. In such cases the protocol needs of each stream must be optimized. While the goal of multiplexing over a single session is preferred, clearly there are cases where this is impractical. Basic NAT implementations have fairly low overhead in the gateway. The latency of this overhead is implementation dependent. With Basic NAT, only the source and destination IP addresses are replaced, and the checksum recalculated. 4. Security Considerations NAT has implications for IPSec, which are covered in other documents. When application developers are considering whether their applications function with NAT implementations, care should be given to selection of security methodology. Transport Layer Security (TLS) [Dierks] operates across translation boundaries. IPSec will prove problematic in many cases. As such, where possible TLS should be the preferred security scheme. 5. References [Bellovin] S. Bellovin, "Firewall Friendly FTP," RFC 1579, February 1994. [Dierks] T. Dierks, C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0," RFC 2246, January 1999. [Hain] T. Hain, "Architectural Implications of NAT," - Work In Progress. [Holdrege] M. Holdrege, P. Srisuresh, "Protocol Complications with the IP Network Address Translator (NAT)," - Work In Progress. [Srisuresh1] P. Srisuresh, M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations," RFC 2663, August 1999. Senie [Page 7] Internet-Draft NAT Friendly Application Design September 1999 [Srisuresh2] P. Srisuresh, "Security Model with Tunnel-mode IPset for NAT Domains," - Work In Progress. 6. Acknowledgements I'd like to thank Pyda Srisuresh of Lucent Technologies for his invaluable feedback on early versions of this draft. 7. Author's Address Daniel Senie Amaranth Networks Inc. 324 Still River Road Bolton, MA 01740 Phone: (978) 779-6813 EMail: dts@senie.com Senie [Page 8]