1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) X. Marjou
Request for Comments: 6263 A. Sollaud
Category: Standards Track France Telecom Orange
ISSN: 2070-1721 June 2011
<span class="h1">Application Mechanism for Keeping Alive the NAT Mappings</span>
<span class="h1">Associated with RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Flows</span>
Abstract
This document lists the different mechanisms that enable applications
using the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) and the RTP Control
Protocol (RTCP) to keep their RTP Network Address Translator (NAT)
mappings alive. It also makes a recommendation for a preferred
mechanism. This document is not applicable to Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE) agents.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6263">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6263</a>.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
<span class="grey">Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6263">RFC 6263</a> RTP Keepalive June 2011</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology .....................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Requirements ....................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. List of Alternatives for Performing RTP Keepalive ...............<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Empty (0-Byte) Transport Packet ............................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. RTP Packet with Comfort Noise Payload ......................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. RTCP Packets Multiplexed with RTP Packets ..................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. STUN Indication Packet .....................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>. RTP Packet with Incorrect Version Number ...................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>. RTP Packet with Unknown Payload Type .......................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Recommended Solution for Keepalive Mechanism ....................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Media Format Exceptions .........................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Timing and Transport Considerations .............................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. RTCP Flow Keepalive .............................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. Security Considerations .........................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. Acknowledgements ...............................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-11">11</a>. References ....................................................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>. Normative References .....................................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>. Informative References ...................................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4787">RFC4787</a>] and [<a href="./rfc5382" title=""NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP"">RFC5382</a>] describe Network Address Translator (NAT)
behaviors and point out that two key aspects of NAT are mappings
(a.k.a. bindings) and keeping them refreshed. This introduces a
derived requirement for applications engaged in a multimedia session
involving NAT traversal: they need to generate a minimum of flow
activity in order to create NAT mappings and maintain them.
When applied to applications using the Real-time Transport Protocol
(RTP) [<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>], the RTP media stream packets themselves normally
fulfill this requirement. However, there exist some cases where RTP
does not generate the minimum required flow activity.
The examples are:
o In some RTP usages, such as the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
[<a href="./rfc3261" title=""SIP: Session Initiation Protocol"">RFC3261</a>], agents can negotiate a unidirectional media stream by
using the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [<a href="./rfc4566" title=""SDP: Session Description Protocol"">RFC4566</a>] "recvonly"
attribute on one agent and "sendonly" on the peer, as defined in
[<a href="./rfc3264" title=""An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)"">RFC3264</a>]. [<a href="./rfc3264" title=""An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)"">RFC3264</a>] directs implementations not to transmit
media on the receiving agent. If the agent receiving the media is
located on the private side of a NAT, it will never receive RTP
packets from the public peer if the NAT mapping has not been
created.
<span class="grey">Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6263">RFC 6263</a> RTP Keepalive June 2011</span>
o Similarly, a bidirectional media stream can be "put on hold".
This is accomplished by using the SDP "sendonly" or "inactive"
attributes. Again, [<a href="./rfc3264" title=""An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)"">RFC3264</a>] directs implementations to cease
transmission of media in these cases. However, doing so may cause
NAT bindings to time out, and media won't be able to come off
hold.
o Some RTP payload formats, such as the payload format for text
conversation [<a href="./rfc4103" title=""RTP Payload for Text Conversation"">RFC4103</a>], may send packets so infrequently that the
interval exceeds the NAT binding timeouts.
To solve these problems, an agent therefore needs to periodically
send keepalive data within the outgoing RTP session of an RTP media
stream regardless of whether the media stream is currently inactive,
sendonly, recvonly, or sendrecv, and regardless of the presence or
value of the bandwidth attribute.
It is important to note that NAT traversal constraints also usually
require that the agents use Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol
(RTCP) [<a href="./rfc4961" title=""Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)"">RFC4961</a>] in addition to RTP keepalive.
This document first states the requirements that must be supported to
perform RTP keepalives (<a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>). In a second step, the document
reports the different mechanisms to overcome this problem
(<a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>). <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a> finally states the recommended solution for
RTP keepalive. <a href="#section-6">Section 6</a> discusses some media format exceptions.
<a href="#section-7">Section 7</a> adds details about timing and transport considerations.
<a href="#section-8">Section 8</a> documents how to maintain NAT bindings for RTCP.
This document is not applicable to Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE) [<a href="./rfc5245" title=""Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols"">RFC5245</a>] agents. Indeed, the ICE protocol,
together with Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) [<a href="./rfc5389" title=""Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)"">RFC5389</a>]
and Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) [<a href="./rfc5766" title=""Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)"">RFC5766</a>], solves the
overall Network Address Translator (NAT) traversal mechanism of media
streams. In the context of RTP media streams, some agents may not
require all ICE functionalities and may only need a keepalive
mechanism. This document thus applies to such agents, and does not
apply to agents implementing ICE.
Note that if a given media uses a codec that already integrates a
keepalive mechanism, no additional keepalive mechanism is required at
the RTP level.
As mentioned in <a href="./rfc5405#section-3.5">Section 3.5 of [RFC5405]</a>, "It is important to note
that keepalive messages are NOT RECOMMENDED for general use -- they
are unnecessary for many applications and can consume significant
amounts of system and network resources".
<span class="grey">Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6263">RFC 6263</a> RTP Keepalive June 2011</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology</span>
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>
[<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Requirements</span>
This section outlines the key requirements that need to be satisfied
in order to provide RTP media keepalive.
REQ-1 Some data is sent periodically within the outgoing RTP session
for the whole duration of the RTP media stream.
REQ-2 Any type of transport (e.g., UDP, TCP) MUST be supported.
REQ-3 Any media type (e.g., audio, video, text) MUST be supported.
REQ-4 Any media format (e.g., G.711, H.263) MUST be supported.
REQ-5 Session signaling protocols SHOULD NOT be impacted.
REQ-6 Impacts on existing software SHOULD be minimized.
REQ-7 The remote peer SHOULD NOT be impacted.
REQ-8 The support for RTP keepalive SHOULD be described in the SDP.
REQ-9 The solution SHOULD cover the integration with RTCP.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. List of Alternatives for Performing RTP Keepalive</span>
This section lists, in no particular order, some alternatives that
can be used to perform a keepalive message within RTP media streams.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Empty (0-Byte) Transport Packet</span>
The application sends an empty transport packet (e.g., UDP packet,
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) packet).
Con:
o This alternative is specific to each transport protocol.
<span class="grey">Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6263">RFC 6263</a> RTP Keepalive June 2011</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. RTP Packet with Comfort Noise Payload</span>
The application sends an RTP packet with a comfort noise payload
[<a href="./rfc3389" title=""Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for Comfort Noise (CN)"">RFC3389</a>].
Cons:
o This alternative is limited to audio formats only.
o Comfort noise needs to be supported by the remote peer.
o Comfort noise needs to be signaled in SDP offer/answer.
o The peer is likely to render comfort noise at the other side, so
the content of the payload (the noise level) needs to be carefully
chosen.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. RTCP Packets Multiplexed with RTP Packets</span>
The application sends RTCP packets in the RTP media path itself
(i.e., the same tuples for both RTP and RTCP packets) [<a href="./rfc5761" title=""Multiplexing RTP Data and Control Packets on a Single Port"">RFC5761</a>].
RTCP packets therefore keep the NAT mappings open as long as the
requirements for parameter selection are fulfilled as discussed in
<a href="#section-8">Section 8</a>.
Note: The "on hold" procedures of [<a href="./rfc3264" title=""An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)"">RFC3264</a>] do not impact RTCP
transmissions.
Cons:
o Multiplexing RTP and RTCP must be supported by the remote peer.
o Some RTCP monitoring tools expect that RTCP packets are not
multiplexed.
o RTCP must be configured so that the Tmin value [<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>] is less
than or equal to the Tr interval.
<span class="grey">Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6263">RFC 6263</a> RTP Keepalive June 2011</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. STUN Indication Packet</span>
The application sends a STUN [<a href="./rfc5389" title=""Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)"">RFC5389</a>] Binding Indication packet as
specified in ICE [<a href="./rfc5245" title=""Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols"">RFC5245</a>].
Thanks to the RTP validity check, STUN packets will be ignored by the
RTP stack.
Con:
o The sending agent needs to support STUN.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>. RTP Packet with Incorrect Version Number</span>
The application sends an RTP packet with a version number set to zero
(i.e., an incorrect version number).
Based on the RTP specification [<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>], the peer should perform a
header validity check and therefore ignore these types of packets.
Cons:
o Only four version numbers are possible. Using one of them for RTP
keepalive would be wasteful.
o [<a href="./rfc4566" title=""SDP: Session Description Protocol"">RFC4566</a>] and [<a href="./rfc3264" title=""An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)"">RFC3264</a>] mandate that media with inactive and
recvonly attributes not be sent; however, this is mitigated, as no
real media is sent with this mechanism.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6" href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>. RTP Packet with Unknown Payload Type</span>
The application sends an RTP packet of 0 length with a dynamic
payload type that has not been negotiated by the peers (e.g., not
negotiated within the SDP offer/answer, and thus not mapped to any
media format).
The sequence number is incremented by one for each packet, as it is
sent within the same RTP session as the actual media. The timestamp
contains the same value that a media packet would have at this time.
The marker bit is not significant for the keepalive packets and is
thus set to zero.
The synchronization source (SSRC) is the same as for the media for
which keepalive is sent.
Normally, the peer will ignore this packet, as RTP [<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>] states
that "a receiver MUST ignore packets with payload types that it does
not understand".
<span class="grey">Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6263">RFC 6263</a> RTP Keepalive June 2011</span>
Cons:
o [<a href="./rfc4566" title=""SDP: Session Description Protocol"">RFC4566</a>] and [<a href="./rfc3264" title=""An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)"">RFC3264</a>] mandate that media with inactive and
recvonly attributes not be sent; however, this is mitigated, as no
real media is sent with this mechanism.
o [<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>] does not preclude examination of received packets by the
peer in an attempt to determine if it is under attack.
o The statement "a receiver MUST ignore packets with payload types
that it does not understand" of [<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>] is not always observed
in real life.
o There is no RTCP reporting for the keepalive packets, as [<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>]
mandates that RTP packets with payload types that the receiver
does not understand be ignored.
o Some RTP payload formats do not handle gaps in RTP sequence number
well.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Recommended Solution for Keepalive Mechanism</span>
The RECOMMENDED mechanism is that discussed in "RTCP Packets
Multiplexed with RTP Packets" (<a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a>). This mechanism is
desirable because it reduces the number of ports when RTP and RTCP
are used. It also has the advantage of taking into account RTCP
aspects, which is not the case with other mechanisms.
Other mechanisms (Sections <a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>, <a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>, <a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>, <a href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>, and <a href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>) are NOT
RECOMMENDED.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Media Format Exceptions</span>
When a given media format does not allow the keepalive solution
recommended in <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a>, an alternative mechanism SHOULD be defined
in the payload format specification for this media format.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Timing and Transport Considerations</span>
An application supporting this specification MUST transmit either
keepalive packets or media packets at least once every Tr seconds
during the whole duration of the media session.
Tr has different value according to the transport protocol.
For UDP, the minimum RECOMMENDED Tr value is 15 seconds, and Tr
SHOULD be configurable to larger values.
<span class="grey">Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6263">RFC 6263</a> RTP Keepalive June 2011</span>
For TCP, the recommended Tr value is 7200 seconds.
When using the "RTCP packets multiplexed with RTP packets" solution
(<a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a>) for keepalive, Tr MUST comply with the RTCP timing
rules of [<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>].
Keepalive packets within a particular RTP session MUST use the tuple
(source IP address, source TCP/UDP port, target IP address, target
TCP/UDP port) of the regular RTP packets.
The agent SHOULD only send RTP keepalive when it does not send
regular RTP packets.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. RTCP Flow Keepalive</span>
RTCP packets are sent periodically and can thus normally keep the NAT
mappings open as long as they are sent frequently enough. There are
two conditions for that. First, RTCP needs to be used
bidirectionally and in a symmetric fashion, as described in
[<a href="./rfc4961" title=""Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)"">RFC4961</a>]. Secondly, RTCP needs to be sent frequently enough.
However, there are certain configurations that can break this latter
assumption.
There are two factors that need to be considered to ensure that RTCP
is sent frequently enough. First, the RTCP bandwidth needs to be
sufficiently large so that transmission will occur more frequently
than the longest acceptable packet transmission interval (Tr). The
worst-case RTCP interval (Twc) can be calculated using this formula
by inserting the max value of the following parameters:
o Maximum RTCP packet size (avg_rtcp_size_max)
o Maximum number of participants (members_max)
o RTCP receiver bandwidth (rtcp_bw)
The RTCP bandwidth value to use here is for a worst case, which will
be the receiver proportion when all members except one are not
senders. This can be approximated to be all members. Thus, for
sessions where RR and RS values [<a href="./rfc3556" title=""Session Description Protocol (SDP) Bandwidth Modifiers for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Bandwidth"">RFC3556</a>] are used, then rtcp_bw
shall be set to RR. For sessions where the [<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>]-defined
proportions of RTCP bandwidth are used (i.e., 1/4 of the bandwidth
for senders and 3/4 of the bandwidth for receivers), then rtcp_bw
will be 5% of 3/4 of the AS value [<a href="./rfc4566" title=""SDP: Session Description Protocol"">RFC4566</a>] in bits per second.
Twc = 1.5 / 1.21828 * members_max * rtcp_bw / avg_rtcp_size_max * 8
<span class="grey">Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6263">RFC 6263</a> RTP Keepalive June 2011</span>
The second factor is the minimum RTCP interval Tmin defined in
[<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>]. Its base value is 5 seconds, but it might also be scaled
to 360 divided by the session bandwidth in kbps. The Extended RTP
Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based
Feedback (RTP/AVPF) [<a href="./rfc4585" title=""Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)"">RFC4585</a>] also allows for the setting of a
trr-int parameter, which is a minimal RTCP interval for regular RTCP
packets. It is also used as the Tmin value in the regular Td
calculation. An analysis of the algorithm shows that the longest
possible regular RTCP interval is:
RTCP_int_max = trr-int * 1.5 + Td * 1.5 / 1.21828
And as long as there is sufficient bandwidth according to criteria 1
below, then the algorithm can be simplified by setting Td = trr-int,
giving
RTCP_int_max = trr-int * (1.5 + 1.5 / 1.21828) = 2.73123 * trr-int
Thus, the requirements for the RTCP parameters are as follows for
functioning keepalive:
1. Ensure that sufficient RTCP bandwidth is provided by calculating
Twc, and ensure that the resulting value is less than or equal
to Tr.
2. If AVP or SAVP [<a href="./rfc3711" title=""The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC3711</a>] is used, the Tmin value can't be greater
than Tr divided by 1.5 / (e-3/2).
3. If AVPF or SAVPF [<a href="./rfc5124" title=""Extended Secure RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/SAVPF)"">RFC5124</a>] is to be used, trr-min must not be set
to a value greater than Tr / 3.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Security Considerations</span>
The RTP keepalive packets are sent on the same path as regular RTP
media packets and may be perceived as an attack by a peer. However,
[<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>] mandates that a peer "ignore packets with payload types
that it does not understand". A peer that does not understand the
keepalive message will thus appropriately drop the received packets.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. Acknowledgements</span>
Jonathan Rosenberg provided the major inputs for this document via
the ICE specification. Magnus Westerlund provided the text for the
RTCP flow keepalive section. In addition, thanks to Alfred E.
Heggestad, Colin Perkins, Dan Wing, Gunnar Hellstrom, Hadriel Kaplan,
Randell Jesup, Remi Denis-Courmont, Robert Sparks, and Steve Casner
for their useful inputs and comments.
<span class="grey">Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6263">RFC 6263</a> RTP Keepalive June 2011</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-11" href="#section-11">11</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.1" href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC3550">RFC3550</a>] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, <a href="./rfc3550">RFC 3550</a>, July 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC4961">RFC4961</a>] Wing, D., "Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)",
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp131">BCP 131</a>, <a href="./rfc4961">RFC 4961</a>, July 2007.
[<a id="ref-RFC5405">RFC5405</a>] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
for Application Designers", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp145">BCP 145</a>, <a href="./rfc5405">RFC 5405</a>,
November 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC5761">RFC5761</a>] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and
Control Packets on a Single Port", <a href="./rfc5761">RFC 5761</a>, April 2010.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.2" href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC3261">RFC3261</a>] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", <a href="./rfc3261">RFC 3261</a>,
June 2002.
[<a id="ref-RFC3264">RFC3264</a>] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", <a href="./rfc3264">RFC 3264</a>,
June 2002.
[<a id="ref-RFC3389">RFC3389</a>] Zopf, R., "Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for
Comfort Noise (CN)", <a href="./rfc3389">RFC 3389</a>, September 2002.
[<a id="ref-RFC3556">RFC3556</a>] Casner, S., "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Bandwidth
Modifiers for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Bandwidth",
<a href="./rfc3556">RFC 3556</a>, July 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC3711">RFC3711</a>] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
<a href="./rfc3711">RFC 3711</a>, March 2004.
[<a id="ref-RFC4103">RFC4103</a>] Hellstrom, G. and P. Jones, "RTP Payload for Text
Conversation", <a href="./rfc4103">RFC 4103</a>, June 2005.
[<a id="ref-RFC4566">RFC4566</a>] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", <a href="./rfc4566">RFC 4566</a>, July 2006.
<span class="grey">Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6263">RFC 6263</a> RTP Keepalive June 2011</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4585">RFC4585</a>] Ott, J., Wenger, S., Sato, N., Burmeister, C., and J. Rey,
"Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF)", <a href="./rfc4585">RFC 4585</a>,
July 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC4787">RFC4787</a>] Audet, F., Ed., and C. Jennings, "Network Address
Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast
UDP", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp127">BCP 127</a>, <a href="./rfc4787">RFC 4787</a>, January 2007.
[<a id="ref-RFC5124">RFC5124</a>] Ott, J. and E. Carrara, "Extended Secure RTP Profile for
Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback
(RTP/SAVPF)", <a href="./rfc5124">RFC 5124</a>, February 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC5245">RFC5245</a>] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", <a href="./rfc5245">RFC 5245</a>,
April 2010.
[<a id="ref-RFC5382">RFC5382</a>] Guha, S., Ed., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp142">BCP 142</a>,
<a href="./rfc5382">RFC 5382</a>, October 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC5389">RFC5389</a>] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", <a href="./rfc5389">RFC 5389</a>,
October 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC5766">RFC5766</a>] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", <a href="./rfc5766">RFC 5766</a>, April 2010.
<span class="grey">Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6263">RFC 6263</a> RTP Keepalive June 2011</span>
Authors' Addresses
Xavier Marjou
France Telecom Orange
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22307
France
EMail: xavier.marjou@orange-ftgroup.com
Aurelien Sollaud
France Telecom Orange
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22307
France
EMail: aurelien.sollaud@orange-ftgroup.com
Marjou & Sollaud Standards Track [Page 12]
</pre>
|
