<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           M. Komu
Request for Comments: 5770                                          HIIT
Category: Experimental                                      T. Henderson
ISSN: 2070-1721                                       The Boeing Company
                                                           H. Tschofenig
                                                  Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                                J. Melen
                                                         A. Keranen, Ed.
                                            Ericsson Research Nomadiclab
                                                              April 2010


           <span class="h1">Basic Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Extensions for</span>
                <span class="h1">Traversal of Network Address Translators</span>

Abstract

   This document specifies extensions to the Host Identity Protocol
   (HIP) to facilitate Network Address Translator (NAT) traversal.  The
   extensions are based on the use of the Interactive Connectivity
   Establishment (ICE) methodology to discover a working path between
   two end-hosts, and on standard techniques for encapsulating
   Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) packets within the User Datagram
   Protocol (UDP).  This document also defines elements of a procedure
   for NAT traversal, including the optional use of a HIP relay server.
   With these extensions HIP is able to work in environments that have
   NATs and provides a generic NAT traversal solution to higher-layer
   networking applications.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation.

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  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).  Not
   all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section&nbsp;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/rfc5770">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5770</a>.





<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                      [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

























<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                      [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


Table of Contents

   <a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
   <a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology .....................................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
   <a href="#section-3">3</a>. Overview of Operation ...........................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
   <a href="#section-4">4</a>. Protocol Description ............................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
      <a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Relay Registration .........................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
      <a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. ICE Candidate Gathering ...................................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
      <a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. NAT Traversal Mode Negotiation ............................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
      <a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. Connectivity Check Pacing Negotiation .....................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
      <a href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>. Base Exchange via HIP Relay Server ........................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
      <a href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>. ICE Connectivity Checks ...................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
      <a href="#section-4.7">4.7</a>. NAT Keepalives ............................................<a href="#page-16">16</a>
      <a href="#section-4.8">4.8</a>. Base Exchange without ICE Connectivity Checks .............<a href="#page-16">16</a>
      4.9. Initiating a Base Exchange Both with and without
           UDP Encapsulation .........................................<a href="#page-17">17</a>
      <a href="#section-4.10">4.10</a>. Sending Control Packets after the Base Exchange ..........<a href="#page-18">18</a>
   <a href="#section-5">5</a>. Packet Formats .................................................<a href="#page-18">18</a>
      <a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. HIP Control Packets .......................................<a href="#page-19">19</a>
      <a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Connectivity Checks .......................................<a href="#page-19">19</a>
      <a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. Keepalives ................................................<a href="#page-20">20</a>
      <a href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>. NAT Traversal Mode Parameter ..............................<a href="#page-21">21</a>
      <a href="#section-5.5">5.5</a>. Connectivity Check Transaction Pacing Parameter ...........<a href="#page-22">22</a>
      <a href="#section-5.6">5.6</a>. Relay and Registration Parameters .........................<a href="#page-22">22</a>
      <a href="#section-5.7">5.7</a>. LOCATOR Parameter .........................................<a href="#page-23">23</a>
      <a href="#section-5.8">5.8</a>. RELAY_HMAC Parameter ......................................<a href="#page-25">25</a>
      <a href="#section-5.9">5.9</a>. Registration Types ........................................<a href="#page-25">25</a>
      <a href="#section-5.10">5.10</a>. Notify Packet Types ......................................<a href="#page-26">26</a>
      <a href="#section-5.11">5.11</a>. ESP Data Packets .........................................<a href="#page-26">26</a>
   <a href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations ........................................<a href="#page-27">27</a>
      <a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Privacy Considerations ....................................<a href="#page-27">27</a>
      <a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Opportunistic Mode ........................................<a href="#page-27">27</a>
      <a href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>. Base Exchange Replay Protection for HIP Relay Server ......<a href="#page-28">28</a>
      <a href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>. Demuxing Different HIP Associations .......................<a href="#page-28">28</a>
   <a href="#section-7">7</a>. IANA Considerations ............................................<a href="#page-28">28</a>
   <a href="#section-8">8</a>. Contributors ...................................................<a href="#page-29">29</a>
   <a href="#section-9">9</a>. Acknowledgments ................................................<a href="#page-29">29</a>
   <a href="#section-10">10</a>. References ....................................................<a href="#page-29">29</a>
      <a href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References .....................................<a href="#page-29">29</a>
      <a href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References ...................................<a href="#page-30">30</a>
   <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Selecting a Value for Check Pacing ....................<a href="#page-32">32</a>
   <a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>. Base Exchange through a Rendezvous Server .............<a href="#page-33">33</a>









<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                      [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction</span>

   HIP [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>] is defined as a protocol that runs directly over IPv4
   or IPv6, and HIP coordinates the setup of ESP security associations
   [<a href="./rfc5202" title="&quot;Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)&quot;">RFC5202</a>] that are also specified to run over IPv4 or IPv6.  This
   approach is known to have problems traversing NATs and other
   middleboxes [<a href="./rfc5207" title="&quot;NAT and Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Communication&quot;">RFC5207</a>].  This document defines HIP extensions for the
   traversal of both Network Address Translator (NAT) and Network
   Address and Port Translator (NAPT) middleboxes.  The document
   generally uses the term NAT to refer to these types of middleboxes.

   Currently deployed NAT devices do not operate consistently even
   though a recommended behavior is described in [<a href="./rfc4787" title="&quot;Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP&quot;">RFC4787</a>].  The HIP
   protocol extensions in this document make as few assumptions as
   possible about the behavior of the NAT devices so that NAT traversal
   will work even with legacy NAT devices.  The purpose of these
   extensions is to allow two HIP-enabled hosts to communicate with each
   other even if one or both of the communicating hosts are in a network
   that is behind one or more NATs.

   Using the extensions defined in this document, HIP end-hosts use
   techniques drawn from the Interactive Connectivity Establishment
   (ICE) methodology [<a href="./rfc5245" title="&quot;Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols&quot;">RFC5245</a>] to find operational paths for the HIP
   control protocol and for ESP encapsulated data traffic.  The hosts
   test connectivity between different locators and try to discover a
   direct end-to-end path between them.  However, with some legacy NATs,
   utilizing the shortest path between two end-hosts located behind NATs
   is not possible without relaying the traffic through a relay, such as
   a Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN) server [<a href="./rfc5128" title="&quot;State of Peer- to-Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address Translators (NATs)&quot;">RFC5128</a>].  Because
   relaying traffic increases the roundtrip delay and consumes resources
   from the relay, with the extensions described in this document, hosts
   try to avoid using the TURN server whenever possible.

   HIP has defined a rendezvous server [<a href="./rfc5204" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension&quot;">RFC5204</a>] to allow for mobile HIP
   hosts to establish a stable point-of-contact in the Internet.  This
   document defines extensions to the rendezvous server that solve the
   same problems, but for both NATed and non-NATed networks.  The
   extended rendezvous server, called a "HIP relay server", forwards HIP
   control packets between an Initiator and a Responder, allowing hosts
   to be located behind NATs.  This behavior is in contrast to the HIP
   rendezvous service that forwards only the initial I1 packet of the
   base exchange; an approach that is less likely to work in a NATed
   environment [<a href="./rfc5128" title="&quot;State of Peer- to-Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address Translators (NATs)&quot;">RFC5128</a>].  Therefore, when using relays to traverse
   NATs, HIP uses a HIP relay server for the control traffic and a TURN
   server for the data traffic.

   The basis for the connectivity checks is ICE [<a href="./rfc5245" title="&quot;Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols&quot;">RFC5245</a>].  [<a href="./rfc5245" title="&quot;Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols&quot;">RFC5245</a>]
   describes ICE as follows:



<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                      [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


      A technique for NAT traversal for UDP-based media streams (though
      ICE can be extended to handle other transport protocols, such as
      TCP) established by the offer/answer model.  ICE is an extension
      to the offer/answer model, and works by including a multiplicity
      of IP addresses and ports in SDP offers and answers, which are
      then tested for connectivity by peer-to-peer connectivity checks.
      The IP addresses and ports included in the SDP and the
      connectivity checks are performed using the revised [Simple
      Traversal of the UDP Protocol through NAT (STUN)] specification
      [<a href="./rfc5389" title="&quot;Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)&quot;">RFC5389</a>], now renamed to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT.

   The standard ICE [<a href="./rfc5245" title="&quot;Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols&quot;">RFC5245</a>] is specified with SIP in mind and it has
   some features that are not necessary or suitable as such for other
   protocols.  [<a href="#ref-MMUSIC-ICE" title="&quot;Guidelines for Usage of Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) by non Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Protocols&quot;">MMUSIC-ICE</a>] gives instructions and recommendations on
   how ICE can be used for other protocols and this document follows
   those guidelines.

   Two HIP hosts that implement this specification communicate their
   locators to each other in the HIP base exchange.  The locators are
   then paired with the locators of the other endpoint and prioritized
   according to recommended and local policies.  These locator pairs are
   then tested sequentially by both of the end-hosts.  The tests may
   result in multiple operational pairs but ICE procedures determine a
   single preferred address pair to be used for subsequent
   communication.

   In summary, the extensions in this document define:

   o  UDP encapsulation of HIP packets

   o  UDP encapsulation of IPsec ESP packets

   o  registration extensions for HIP relay services

   o  how the ICE "offer" and "answer" are carried in the base exchange

   o  interaction with ICE connectivity check messages

   o  backwards compatibility issues with rendezvous servers

   o  a number of optimizations (such as when the ICE connectivity tests
      can be omitted)









<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                      [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>.  Terminology</span>

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [<a href="./rfc2119" title="&quot;Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels&quot;">RFC2119</a>].

   This document borrows terminology from [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>], [<a href="./rfc5206" title="&quot;End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5206</a>],
   [<a href="./rfc4423" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture&quot;">RFC4423</a>], [<a href="./rfc5245" title="&quot;Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols&quot;">RFC5245</a>], and [<a href="./rfc5389" title="&quot;Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)&quot;">RFC5389</a>].  Additionally, the following
   terms are used:

   Rendezvous server:
      A host that forwards I1 packets to the Responder.

   HIP relay server:
      A host that forwards any kind of HIP control packets between the
      Initiator and the Responder.

   TURN server:
      A server that forwards data traffic between two end-hosts as
      defined in [<a href="./rfc5766" title="&quot;Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)&quot;">RFC5766</a>].

   Locator:
      As defined in [<a href="./rfc5206" title="&quot;End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5206</a>]: "A name that controls how the packet is
      routed through the network and demultiplexed by the end-host.  It
      may include a concatenation of traditional network addresses such
      as an IPv6 address and end-to-end identifiers such as an ESP SPI.
      It may also include transport port numbers or IPv6 Flow Labels as
      demultiplexing context, or it may simply be a network address."

   LOCATOR (written in capital letters):
      Denotes a HIP control packet parameter that bundles multiple
      locators together.

   ICE offer:
      The Initiator's LOCATOR parameter in a HIP I2 control packet.

   ICE answer:
      The Responder's LOCATOR parameter in a HIP R2 control packet.

   Transport address:
      Transport layer port and the corresponding IPv4/v6 address.

   Candidate:
      A transport address that is a potential point of contact for
      receiving data.






<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                      [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   Host candidate:
      A candidate obtained by binding to a specific port from an IP
      address on the host.

   Server reflexive candidate:
      A translated transport address of a host as observed by a HIP
      relay server or a STUN/TURN server.

   Peer reflexive candidate:
      A translated transport address of a host as observed by its peer.

   Relayed candidate:
      A transport address that exists on a TURN server.  Packets that
      arrive at this address are relayed towards the TURN client.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>.  Overview of Operation</span>

                                 +-------+
                                 | HIP   |
              +--------+         | Relay |         +--------+
              | TURN   |         +-------+         | STUN   |
              | Server |        /         \        | Server |
              +--------+       /           \       +--------+
                              /             \
                             /               \
                            /                 \
                           /  &lt;- Signaling -&gt;  \
                          /                     \
                    +-------+                +-------+
                    |  NAT  |                |  NAT  |
                    +-------+                +-------+
                     /                              \
                    /                                \
               +-------+                           +-------+
               | Init- |                           | Resp- |
               | iator |                           | onder |
               +-------+                           +-------+

                  Figure 1: Example Network Configuration

   In the example configuration depicted in Figure 1, both Initiator and
   Responder are behind one or more NATs, and both private networks are
   connected to the public Internet.  To be contacted from behind a NAT,
   the Responder must be registered with a HIP relay server reachable on
   the public Internet, and we assume, as a starting point, that the
   Initiator knows both the Responder's Host Identity Tag (HIT) and the





<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                      [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   address of one of its relay servers (how the Initiator learns of the
   Responder's relay server is outside of the scope of this document,
   but may be through DNS or another name service).

   The first steps are for both the Initiator and Responder to register
   with a relay server (need not be the same one) and gather a set of
   address candidates.  The hosts may use TURN and STUN servers for
   gathering the candidates.  Next, the HIP base exchange is carried out
   by encapsulating the HIP control packets in UDP datagrams and sending
   them through the Responder's relay server.  As part of the base
   exchange, each HIP host learns of the peer's candidate addresses
   through the ICE offer/answer procedure embedded in the base exchange.

   Once the base exchange is completed, HIP has established a working
   communication session (for signaling) via a relay server, but the
   hosts still work to find a better path, preferably without a relay,
   for the ESP data flow.  For this, ICE connectivity checks are carried
   out until a working pair of addresses is discovered.  At the end of
   the procedure, if successful, the hosts will have enabled a UDP-based
   flow that traverses both NATs, with the data flowing directly from
   NAT to NAT or via a TURN server.  Further HIP signaling can be sent
   over the same address/port pair and is demultiplexed from data
   traffic via a marker in the payload.  Finally, NAT keepalives will be
   sent as needed.

   If either one of the hosts knows that it is not behind a NAT, hosts
   can negotiate during the base exchange a different mode of NAT
   traversal that does not use ICE connectivity checks, but only UDP
   encapsulation of HIP and ESP.  Also, it is possible for the Initiator
   to simultaneously try a base exchange with and without UDP
   encapsulation.  If a base exchange without UDP encapsulation
   succeeds, no ICE connectivity checks or UDP encapsulation of ESP are
   needed.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>.  Protocol Description</span>

   This section describes the normative behavior of the protocol
   extension.  Examples of packet exchanges are provided for
   illustration purposes.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>.  Relay Registration</span>

   HIP rendezvous servers operate in non-NATed environments and their
   use is described in [<a href="./rfc5204" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension&quot;">RFC5204</a>].  This section specifies a new
   middlebox extension, called the HIP relay server, for operating in
   NATed environments.  A HIP relay server forwards HIP control packets
   between the Initiator and the Responder.




<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                      [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   End-hosts cannot use the HIP relay service for forwarding the ESP
   data plane.  Instead, they use TURN servers [<a href="./rfc5766" title="&quot;Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)&quot;">RFC5766</a>].

   A HIP relay server MUST silently drop packets to a HIP relay client
   that has not previously registered with the HIP relay.  The
   registration process follows the generic registration extensions
   defined in [<a href="./rfc5203" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension&quot;">RFC5203</a>] and is illustrated in Figure 2.

      HIP                                                      HIP
      Relay                                                    Relay
      Client                                                   Server
        |   1. UDP(I1)                                           |
        +-------------------------------------------------------&gt;|
        |                                                        |
        |   2. UDP(R1(REG_INFO(RELAY_UDP_HIP)))                  |
        |&lt;-------------------------------------------------------+
        |                                                        |
        |   3. UDP(I2(REG_REQ(RELAY_UDP_HIP)))                   |
        +-------------------------------------------------------&gt;|
        |                                                        |
        |   4. UDP(R2(REG_RES(RELAY_UDP_HIP), REG_FROM))         |
        |&lt;-------------------------------------------------------+
        |                                                        |

              Figure 2: Example Registration with a HIP Relay

   In step 1, the relay client (Initiator) starts the registration
   procedure by sending an I1 packet over UDP.  It is RECOMMENDED that
   the Initiator select a random port number from the ephemeral port
   range 49152-65535 for initiating a base exchange.  Alternatively, a
   host MAY also use a single fixed port for initiating all outgoing
   connections.  However, the allocated port MUST be maintained until
   all of the corresponding HIP Associations are closed.  It is
   RECOMMENDED that the HIP relay server listen to incoming connections
   at UDP port 10500.  If some other port number is used, it needs to be
   known by potential Initiators.

   In step 2, the HIP relay server (Responder) lists the services that
   it supports in the R1 packet.  The support for HIP-over-UDP relaying
   is denoted by the Registration Type value RELAY_UDP_HIP (see
   <a href="#section-5.9">Section 5.9</a>).

   In step 3, the Initiator selects the services for which it registers
   and lists them in the REG_REQ parameter.  The Initiator registers for
   HIP relay service by listing the RELAY_UDP_HIP value in the request
   parameter.





<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                      [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   In step 4, the Responder concludes the registration procedure with an
   R2 packet and acknowledges the registered services in the REG_RES
   parameter.  The Responder denotes unsuccessful registrations (if any)
   in the REG_FAILED parameter of R2.  The Responder also includes a
   REG_FROM parameter that contains the transport address of the client
   as observed by the relay (Server Reflexive candidate).  After the
   registration, the client sends NAT keepalives, as described in
   <a href="#section-4.7">Section 4.7</a>, periodically to the relay to keep possible NAT bindings
   between the client and the relay alive.  The relay client maintains
   the HIP association with the relay server as long as it requires
   relaying service from it.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>.  ICE Candidate Gathering</span>

   If a host is going to use ICE, it needs to gather a set of address
   candidates.  The candidate gathering SHOULD be done as defined in
   <a href="./rfc5245#section-4.1">Section&nbsp;4.1 of [RFC5245]</a>.  Candidates need to be gathered for the
   UDP-encapsulated flow of HIP and ESP traffic.  This flow corresponds
   to one ICE media stream and component.  Since ICE component IDs are
   not needed, they are not explicitly signaled and ID value of 1 SHOULD
   be used for ICE processing, where needed.  The Initiator takes the
   role of the ICE controlling agent.

   The candidate gathering can be done at any time, but it needs to be
   done before sending an I2 or R2 in the base exchange if ICE is to be
   used for the connectivity checks.  It is RECOMMENDED that all three
   types of candidates (host, server reflexive, and relayed) are
   gathered to maximize the probability of successful NAT traversal.
   However, if no TURN server is used, and the host has only a single
   local IP address to use, the host MAY use the local address as the
   only host candidate and the address from the REG_FROM parameter
   discovered during the relay registration as a server reflexive
   candidate.  In this case, no further candidate gathering is needed.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>.  NAT Traversal Mode Negotiation</span>

   This section describes the usage of a new non-critical parameter
   type.  The presence of the parameter in a HIP base exchange means
   that the end-host supports NAT traversal extensions described in this
   document.  As the parameter is non-critical (as defined in <a href="./rfc5201#section-5.2.1">Section</a>
   <a href="./rfc5201#section-5.2.1">5.2.1 of [RFC5201]</a>), it can be ignored by an end-host, which means
   that the host does not support or is not willing to use these
   extensions.

   With registration with a HIP relay, it is usually sufficient to use
   the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode of NAT traversal since the relay is
   assumed to be in public address space.  Thus, the relay SHOULD
   propose the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode as the preferred or only mode.



<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   The NAT traversal mode negotiation in a HIP base exchange is
   illustrated in Figure 3.

     Initiator                                                Responder
     | 1. UDP(I1)                                                     |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------&gt;|
     |                                                                |
     | 2. UDP(R1(.., NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE(list of modes), ..))          |
     |&lt;---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                                                                |
     | 3. UDP(I2(.., NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE(selected mode), LOCATOR, ..)) |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------&gt;|
     |                                                                |
     | 4. UDP(R2(.., LOCATOR, ..))                                    |
     |&lt;---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                                                                |

                Figure 3: Negotiation of NAT Traversal Mode

   In step 1, the Initiator sends an I1 to the Responder.  In step 2,
   the Responder responds with an R1.  The NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE parameter
   in R1 contains a list of NAT traversal modes the Responder supports.
   The modes specified in this document are shown in Table 1 and their
   values are specified in <a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a>.

   +-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
   | Type              | Purpose                                       |
   +-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
   | RESERVED          | Reserved for future use                       |
   |                   |                                               |
   | UDP-ENCAPSULATION | Use only UDP encapsulation of the HIP         |
   |                   | signaling traffic and ESP (no ICE             |
   |                   | connectivity checks)                          |
   |                   |                                               |
   | ICE-STUN-UDP      | UDP-encapsulated control and data traffic     |
   |                   | with ICE-based connectivity checks using STUN |
   |                   | messages                                      |
   +-------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

                       Table 1: NAT Traversal Modes

   In step 3, the Initiator sends an I2 that includes a
   NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE parameter.  It contains the mode selected by the
   Initiator from the list of modes offered by the Responder.  If ICE
   mode was selected, the I2 also includes the "Transport address"
   locators (as defined in <a href="#section-5.7">Section 5.7</a>) of the Initiator in a LOCATOR
   parameter.  The locators in I2 are the "ICE offer".




<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   In step 4, the Responder concludes the base exchange with an R2
   packet.  If the Initiator chose ICE NAT traversal mode, the Responder
   includes a LOCATOR parameter in the R2 packet.  The locators in R2,
   encoded like the locators in I2, are the "ICE answer".  If the NAT
   traversal mode selected by the Initiator is not supported by the
   Responder, the Responder SHOULD reply with a NOTIFY packet with type
   NO_VALID_NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE_PARAMETER and abort the base exchange.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>.  Connectivity Check Pacing Negotiation</span>

   As explained in [<a href="./rfc5245" title="&quot;Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols&quot;">RFC5245</a>], when a NAT traversal mode with
   connectivity checks is used, new transactions should not be started
   too fast to avoid congestion and overwhelming the NATs.

   For this purpose, during the base exchange, hosts can negotiate a
   transaction pacing value, Ta, using a TRANSACTION_PACING parameter in
   R1 and I2 packets.  The parameter contains the minimum time
   (expressed in milliseconds) the host would wait between two NAT
   traversal transactions, such as starting a new connectivity check or
   retrying a previous check.  If a host does not include this parameter
   in the base exchange, a Ta value of 500 ms MUST be used as that
   host's minimum value.  The value that is used by both of the hosts is
   the higher out of the two offered values.

   Hosts SHOULD NOT use values smaller than 20 ms for the minimum Ta,
   since such values may not work well with some NATs, as explained in
   [<a href="./rfc5245" title="&quot;Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols&quot;">RFC5245</a>].  The Initiator MUST NOT propose a smaller value than what
   the Responder offered.

   The minimum Ta value SHOULD be configurable, and if no value is
   configured, a value of 500 ms MUST be used.  Guidelines for selecting
   a Ta value are given in <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>.  Currently this feature applies
   only to the ICE-STUN-UDP NAT traversal mode, but any other mode using
   connectivity checks SHOULD utilize this feature.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>.  Base Exchange via HIP Relay Server</span>

   This section describes how the Initiator and Responder perform a base
   exchange through a HIP relay server.  The NAT traversal mode
   negotiation (denoted as NAT_TM in the example) was described in
   <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a> and is not repeated here.  If a relay receives an R1 or
   I2 packet without the NAT traversal mode parameter, it MUST drop it
   and SHOULD send a NOTIFY error packet with type
   NO_VALID_NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE_PARAMETER to the sender of the R1/I2.







<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   It is RECOMMENDED that the Initiator send an I1 packet encapsulated
   in UDP when it is destined to an IPv4 address of the Responder.
   Respectively, the Responder MUST respond to such an I1 packet with a
   UDP-encapsulated R1 packet and the rest of the base exchange, I2 and
   R2, MUST also use UDP encapsulation.

     Initiator                   HIP relay                   Responder
     | 1. UDP(I1)                   |                                |
     +-----------------------------&gt;| 2. UDP(I1(RELAY_FROM))         |
     |                              +-------------------------------&gt;|
     |                              |                                |
     |                              | 3. UDP(R1(RELAY_TO, NAT_TM))   |
     | 4. UDP(R1(RELAY_TO, NAT_TM)) |&lt;-------------------------------+
     |&lt;-----------------------------+                                |
     |                              |                                |
     | 5. UDP(I2(LOCATOR, NAT_TM))  |                                |
     +-----------------------------&gt;| 6. UDP(I2(LOCATOR, RELAY_FROM, |
     |                              |           NAT_TM))             |
     |                              +-------------------------------&gt;|
     |                              |                                |
     |                              | 7. UDP(R2(LOCATOR, RELAY_TO))  |
     | 8. UDP(R2(LOCATOR, RELAY_TO))|&lt;-------------------------------+
     |&lt;-----------------------------+                                |
     |                              |                                |

              Figure 4: Base Exchange via a HIP Relay Server

   In step 1 of Figure 4, the Initiator sends an I1 packet over the
   transport layer to the HIT of the Responder and IP address and port
   of the HIP relay server.  The source address is one of the locators
   of the Initiator.

   In step 2, the HIP relay server receives the I1 packet.  If the
   destination HIT belongs to a registered Responder, the relay
   processes the packet.  Otherwise, the relay MUST drop the packet
   silently.  The relay appends a RELAY_FROM parameter to the I1 packet,
   which contains the transport source address and port of the I1 as
   observed by the relay.  The relay protects the I1 packet with
   RELAY_HMAC as described in [<a href="./rfc5204" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension&quot;">RFC5204</a>], except that the parameter type
   is different (see <a href="#section-5.8">Section 5.8</a>).  The relay changes the source and
   destination ports and IP addresses of the packet to match the values
   the Responder used when registering to the relay, i.e., the reverse
   of the R2 used in the registration.  The relay MUST recalculate the
   transport checksum and forward the packet to the Responder.







<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   In step 3, the Responder receives the I1 packet.  The Responder
   processes it according to the rules in [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>].  In addition, the
   Responder validates the RELAY_HMAC according to [<a href="./rfc5204" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension&quot;">RFC5204</a>] and
   silently drops the packet if the validation fails.  The Responder
   replies with an R1 packet to which it includes RELAY_TO and NAT
   traversal mode parameters.  The RELAY_TO parameter MUST contain the
   same information as the RELAY_FROM parameter, i.e., the Initiator's
   transport address, but the type of the parameter is different.  The
   RELAY_TO parameter is not integrity protected by the signature of the
   R1 to allow pre-created R1 packets at the Responder.

   In step 4, the relay receives the R1 packet.  The relay drops the
   packet silently if the source HIT belongs to an unregistered host.
   The relay MAY verify the signature of the R1 packet and drop it if
   the signature is invalid.  Otherwise, the relay rewrites the source
   address and port, and changes the destination address and port to
   match RELAY_TO information.  Finally, the relay recalculates
   transport checksum and forwards the packet.

   In step 5, the Initiator receives the R1 packet and processes it
   according to [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>].  The Initiator MAY use the address in the
   RELAY_TO parameter as a local peer-reflexive candidate for this HIP
   association if it is different from all known local candidates.  The
   Initiator replies with an I2 packet that uses the destination
   transport address of R1 as the source address and port.  The I2
   packet contains a LOCATOR parameter that lists all the ICE candidates
   (ICE offer) of the Initiator.  The candidates are encoded using the
   format defined in <a href="#section-5.7">Section 5.7</a>.  The I2 packet MUST also contain a NAT
   traversal mode parameter with the mode the Initiator selected.

   In step 6, the relay receives the I2 packet.  The relay appends a
   RELAY_FROM and a RELAY_HMAC to the I2 packet as explained in step 2.

   In step 7, the Responder receives the I2 packet and processes it
   according to [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>].  It replies with an R2 packet and includes a
   RELAY_TO parameter as explained in step 3.  The R2 packet includes a
   LOCATOR parameter that lists all the ICE candidates (ICE answer) of
   the Responder.  The RELAY_TO parameter is protected by the HMAC.

   In step 8, the relay processes the R2 as described in step 4.  The
   relay forwards the packet to the Initiator.  After the Initiator has
   received the R2 and processed it successfully, the base exchange is
   completed.

   Hosts MUST include the address of one or more HIP relay servers
   (including the one that is being used for the initial signaling) in
   the LOCATOR parameter in I2/R2 if they intend to use such servers for
   relaying HIP signaling immediately after the base exchange completes.



<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   The traffic type of these addresses MUST be "HIP signaling" and they
   MUST NOT be used as ICE candidates.  If the HIP relay server locator
   used for the base exchange is not included in I2/R2 LOCATOR
   parameters, it SHOULD NOT be used after the base exchange, but
   further HIP signaling SHOULD use the same path as the data traffic.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.6" href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>.  ICE Connectivity Checks</span>

   If a HIP relay server was used, the Responder completes the base
   exchange with the R2 packet through the relay.  However, the
   destination address the Initiator and Responder used for the base
   exchange packets belongs to the HIP relay server.  Therefore, that
   address MUST NOT be used as a destination for ESP traffic.  Instead,
   if a NAT traversal mode with ICE connectivity checks was selected,
   the Initiator and Responder MUST start the connectivity checks.

   Creating the checklist for the ICE connectivity checks should be
   performed as described in <a href="./rfc5245#section-5.7">Section&nbsp;5.7 of [RFC5245]</a> bearing in mind
   that only one media stream and component is needed (so there will be
   only a single checklist and all candidates should have the same
   component ID value).  The actual connectivity checks MUST be
   performed as described in <a href="./rfc5245#section-7">Section&nbsp;7 of [RFC5245]</a>.  Regular mode
   SHOULD be used for the candidate nomination.  <a href="#section-5.2">Section 5.2</a> defines the
   details of the STUN control packets.  As a result of the ICE
   connectivity checks, ICE nominates a single transport address pair to
   be used if an operational address pair was found.  The end-hosts MUST
   use this address pair for the ESP traffic.

   The connectivity check messages MUST be paced by the value negotiated
   during the base exchange as described in <a href="#section-4.4">Section 4.4</a>.  If neither one
   of the hosts announced a minimum pacing value, a value of 500 ms MUST
   be used.

   For retransmissions, the retransmission timeout (RTO) value SHOULD be
   calculated as follows:

      RTO = MAX (500ms, Ta * (Num-Waiting + Num-In-Progress))

   In the RTO formula, Ta is the value used for the connectivity check
   pacing, Num-Waiting is the number of pairs in the checklist in the
   "Waiting" state, and Num-In-Progress is the number of pairs in the
   "In-Progress" state.  This is identical to the formula in [<a href="./rfc5245" title="&quot;Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols&quot;">RFC5245</a>]
   if there is only one checklist.








<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   If the ICE connectivity checks failed, the hosts MUST NOT send ESP
   traffic to each other but MAY continue communicating using HIP
   packets and the locators used for the base exchange.  Also, the hosts
   SHOULD notify each other about the failure with a
   CONNECTIVITY_CHECKS_FAILED NOTIFY packet (see <a href="#section-5.10">Section 5.10</a>).

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.7" href="#section-4.7">4.7</a>.  NAT Keepalives</span>

   To prevent NAT states from expiring, communicating hosts send
   periodic keepalives to each other.  HIP relay servers MAY refrain
   from sending keepalives if it's known that they are not behind a
   middlebox that requires keepalives.  An end-host MUST send keepalives
   every 15 seconds to refresh the UDP port mapping at the NAT(s) when
   the control or data channel is idle.  To implement failure tolerance,
   an end-host SHOULD have a shorter keepalive period.

   The keepalives are STUN Binding Indications if the hosts have agreed
   on ICE-STUN-UDP NAT traversal mode during the base exchange.
   Otherwise, HIP NOTIFY packets MAY be used as keepalives.

   The communicating hosts MUST send keepalives to each other using the
   transport locators they agreed to use for data and signaling when
   they are in the ESTABLISHED state.  Also, the Initiator MUST send a
   NOTIFY packet to the relay to keep the NAT states alive on the path
   between the Initiator and relay when the Initiator has not received
   any response to its I1 or I2 from the Responder in 15 seconds.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.8" href="#section-4.8">4.8</a>.  Base Exchange without ICE Connectivity Checks</span>

   In certain network environments, the ICE connectivity checks can be
   omitted to reduce initial connection set-up latency because a base
   exchange acts as an implicit connectivity test itself.  For this to
   work, the Initiator MUST be able to reach the Responder by simply UDP
   encapsulating HIP and ESP packets sent to the Responder's address.
   Detecting and configuring this particular scenario is prone to
   failure unless carefully planned.

   In such a scenario, the Responder MAY include UDP-ENCAPSULATION NAT
   traversal mode as one of the supported modes in the R1 packet.  If
   the Responder has registered to a HIP relay server, it MUST also
   include a LOCATOR parameter in R1 that contains a preferred address
   where the Responder is able to receive UDP-encapsulated ESP and HIP
   packets.  This locator MUST be of type "Transport address", its
   Traffic type MUST be "both", and it MUST have the "Preferred bit" set
   (see Table 2).  If there is no such locator in R1, the source address
   of R1 is used as the Responder's preferred address.





<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   The Initiator MAY choose the UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode if the Responder
   listed it in the supported modes and the Initiator does not wish to
   use ICE for searching for a more optimal path.  In this case, the
   Initiator sends the I2 with UDP-ENCAPSULATION mode in the NAT
   traversal mode parameter directly to the Responder's preferred
   address (i.e., to the preferred locator in R1 or to the address where
   R1 was received from if there was no preferred locator in R1).  The
   Initiator MAY include locators in I2 but they MUST NOT be taken as
   ICE candidates, since ICE will not be used for connections with UDP-
   ENCAPSULATION NAT traversal mode.  Instead, if R2 and I2 are received
   and processed successfully, a security association can be created and
   UDP-encapsulated ESP can be exchanged between the hosts after the
   base exchange completes.  However, the Responder SHOULD NOT send any
   ESP to the Initiator's address before it has received data from the
   Initiator, as specified in Sections <a href="#section-4.4.2">4.4.2</a>. and 6.9 of [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>] and
   in Sections <a href="#section-3.2.9">3.2.9</a> and <a href="#section-5.4">5.4</a> of [<a href="./rfc5206" title="&quot;End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5206</a>].

   Since an I2 packet with UDP-ENCAPSULATION NAT traversal mode selected
   MUST NOT be sent via a relay, the Responder SHOULD reject such I2
   packets and reply with a NO_VALID_NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE_PARAMETER NOTIFY
   packet (see <a href="#section-5.10">Section 5.10</a>).

   If there is no answer for the I2 packet sent directly to the
   Responder's preferred address, the Initiator MAY send another I2 via
   the HIP relay server, but it MUST NOT choose UDP-ENCAPSULATION NAT
   traversal mode for that I2.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.9" href="#section-4.9">4.9</a>.  Initiating a Base Exchange Both with and without UDP Encapsulation</span>

   The Initiator MAY also try to simultaneously perform a base exchange
   with the Responder without UDP encapsulation.  In such a case, the
   Initiator sends two I1 packets, one without and one with UDP
   encapsulation, to the Responder.  The Initiator MAY wait for a while
   before sending the other I1.  How long to wait and in which order to
   send the I1 packets can be decided based on local policy.  For
   retransmissions, the procedure is repeated.

   The I1 packet without UDP encapsulation may arrive directly, without
   any relays, at the Responder.  When this happens, the procedures in
   [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>] are followed for the rest of the base exchange.  The
   Initiator may receive multiple R1 packets, with and without UDP
   encapsulation, from the Responder.  However, after receiving a valid
   R1 and answering it with an I2, further R1 packets that are not
   retransmits of the original R1 MUST be ignored.







<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   The I1 packet without UDP encapsulation may also arrive at a HIP-
   capable middlebox.  When the middlebox is a HIP rendezvous server and
   the Responder has successfully registered with the rendezvous
   service, the middlebox follows rendezvous procedures in [<a href="./rfc5204" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension&quot;">RFC5204</a>].

   If the Initiator receives a NAT traversal mode parameter in R1
   without UDP encapsulation, the Initiator MAY ignore this parameter
   and send an I2 without UDP encapsulation and without any selected NAT
   traversal mode.  When the Responder receives the I2 without UDP
   encapsulation and without NAT traversal mode, it will assume that no
   NAT traversal mechanism is needed.  The packet processing will be
   done as described in [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>].  The Initiator MAY store the NAT
   traversal modes for future use, e.g., in case of a mobility or
   multihoming event that causes NAT traversal to be used during the
   lifetime of the HIP association.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.10" href="#section-4.10">4.10</a>.  Sending Control Packets after the Base Exchange</span>

   After the base exchange, the end-hosts MAY send HIP control packets
   directly to each other using the transport address pair established
   for a data channel without sending the control packets through the
   HIP relay server.  When a host does not get acknowledgments, e.g., to
   an UPDATE or CLOSE packet after a timeout based on local policies,
   the host SHOULD resend the packet through the relay, if it was listed
   in the LOCATOR parameter in the base exchange.

   If control packets are sent through a HIP relay server, the host
   registered with the relay MUST utilize the RELAY_TO parameter as in
   the base exchange.  The HIP relay server SHOULD forward HIP packets
   to the registered hosts and forward packets from a registered host to
   the address in the RELAY_TO parameter.  The relay MUST add a
   RELAY_FROM parameter to the control packets it relays to the
   registered hosts.

   If the HIP relay server is not willing or able to relay a HIP packet,
   it MAY notify the sender of the packet with MESSAGE_NOT_RELAYED error
   notification (see <a href="#section-5.10">Section 5.10</a>).

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>.  Packet Formats</span>

   The following subsections define the parameter and packet encodings
   for the HIP, ESP, and ICE connectivity check packets.  All values
   MUST be in network byte order.








<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>.  HIP Control Packets</span>

      0                   1                   2                   3
      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |        Source Port            |       Destination Port        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           Length              |           Checksum            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       32 bits of zeroes                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     ~                    HIP Header and Parameters                  ~
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 5: Format of UDP-Encapsulated HIP Control Packets

   HIP control packets are encapsulated in UDP packets as defined in
   <a href="./rfc3948#section-2.2">Section&nbsp;2.2 of [RFC3948]</a>, "IKE Header Format for Port 4500", except a
   different port number is used.  Figure 5 illustrates the
   encapsulation.  The UDP header is followed by 32 zero bits that can
   be used to differentiate HIP control packets from ESP packets.  The
   HIP header and parameters follow the conventions of [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>] with
   the exception that the HIP header checksum MUST be zero.  The HIP
   header checksum is zero for two reasons.  First, the UDP header
   already contains a checksum.  Second, the checksum definition in
   [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>] includes the IP addresses in the checksum calculation.  The
   NATs unaware of HIP cannot recompute the HIP checksum after changing
   IP addresses.

   A HIP relay server or a Responder without a relay SHOULD listen at
   UDP port 10500 for incoming UDP-encapsulated HIP control packets.  If
   some other port number is used, it needs to be known by potential
   Initiators.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>.  Connectivity Checks</span>

   The connectivity checks are performed using STUN Binding requests as
   defined in [<a href="./rfc5245" title="&quot;Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols&quot;">RFC5245</a>].  This section describes the details of the
   parameters in the STUN messages.

   The Binding requests MUST use STUN short-term credentials with the
   last 32 bits of the HITs of the Initiator and Responder as the
   username fragments.  The username is formed from the username
   fragments as defined in <a href="./rfc5245#section-7.1.1.3">Section&nbsp;7.1.1.3 of [RFC5245]</a>.  The 32-bit
   username fragments are expressed using lowercase hexadecimal ASCII
   characters.  The leading zeroes MUST NOT be omitted so that the



<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   username's size is fixed (8 characters); for example, if the local
   HIT is 2001:15:8ebe:1aa7:42f5:b413:7237:6c0a and the remote HIT is
   2001:18:46fa:97c0:ba5:cd77:51:47b, the local username would be
   72376c0a and the remote username 0051047b.

   The STUN password is drawn from the Diffie-Hellman (DH) keying
   material.  Drawing of HIP keys is defined in <a href="./rfc5201#section-6.5">[RFC5201], Section&nbsp;6.5</a>
   and drawing of ESP keys in <a href="./rfc5202#section-7">[RFC5202], Section&nbsp;7</a>.  Correspondingly,
   the hosts MUST draw symmetric keys for STUN according to <a href="./rfc5201#section-6.5">[RFC5201],
   Section&nbsp;6.5</a>.  The hosts draw the STUN key after HIP keys, or after
   ESP keys if ESP transform was successfully negotiated in the base
   exchange.  Both hosts draw a 128-bit key from the DH keying material,
   express that in hexadecimal ASCII format using only lowercase letters
   (resulting in 32 numbers or lowercase letters), and use that as both
   the local and peer password.  [<a href="./rfc5389" title="&quot;Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)&quot;">RFC5389</a>] describes how hosts use the
   password for message integrity of STUN messages.

   Both the username and password are expressed in ASCII hexadecimal
   format to prevent the need to run them through SASLPrep as defined in
   [<a href="./rfc5389" title="&quot;Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)&quot;">RFC5389</a>].

   The connectivity checks MUST contain the PRIORITY attribute.  They
   MAY contain the USE-CANDIDATE attribute as defined in <a href="./rfc5245#section-7.1.1.1">Section&nbsp;7.1.1.1
   of [RFC5245]</a>.

   The Initiator is always in the controlling role during a base
   exchange.  When two hosts are initiating a connection to each other
   simultaneously, the HIP state machine detects it and assigns the host
   with the larger HIT as the Responder as explained in Sections <a href="#section-4.4.2">4.4.2</a>
   and 6.7 in [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>].  Hence, the ICE-CONTROLLED and ICE-CONTROLLING
   attributes are not needed to resolve role conflicts.  However, the
   attributes SHOULD be added to the connectivity check messages to
   ensure interoperability with different ICE stacks, and they can be
   safely ignored on received connectivity checks.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3" href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>.  Keepalives</span>

   The keepalives for HIP associations that are created with ICE are
   STUN Binding Indications, as defined in [<a href="./rfc5389" title="&quot;Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)&quot;">RFC5389</a>].  In contrast to
   the UDP-encapsulated HIP header, the non-ESP-marker between the UDP
   header and the STUN header is excluded.  Keepalives MUST contain the
   FINGERPRINT STUN attribute but SHOULD NOT contain any other STUN
   attributes and SHOULD NOT utilize any authentication mechanism.  STUN
   messages are demultiplexed from ESP and HIP control packets using the
   STUN markers, such as the magic cookie value and the FINGERPRINT
   attribute.





<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   Keepalives for HIP associations created without ICE are HIP control
   packets that have NOTIFY as the packet type.  The keepalive NOTIFY
   packets do not contain any parameters.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4" href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>.  NAT Traversal Mode Parameter</span>

   The format of the NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE parameter is similar to the
   format of the ESP_TRANSFORM parameter in [<a href="./rfc5202" title="&quot;Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)&quot;">RFC5202</a>] and is shown in
   Figure 6.  This specification defines traversal mode identifiers UDP-
   ENCAPSULATION and ICE-STUN-UDP.  The identifier RESERVED is reserved
   for future use.  Future specifications may define more traversal
   modes.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Type              |             Length            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           Reserved            |            Mode ID #1         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           Mode ID #2          |            Mode ID #3         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           Mode ID #n          |             Padding           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type       608
     Length     length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and padding
     Reserved   zero when sent, ignored when received
     Mode ID    defines the proposed or selected NAT traversal mode(s)

     The following NAT traversal mode IDs are defined:

         ID name            Value
         RESERVED             0
         UDP-ENCAPSULATION    1
         ICE-STUN-UDP         2

           Figure 6: Format of the NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE Parameter

   The sender of a NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE parameter MUST make sure that
   there are no more than six (6) Mode IDs in one NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE
   parameter.  Conversely, a recipient MUST be prepared to handle
   received NAT traversal mode parameters that contain more than six
   Mode IDs by accepting the first six Mode IDs and dropping the rest.
   The limited number of Mode IDs sets the maximum size of the
   NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE parameter.  The modes MUST be in preference order,
   most preferred mode(s) first.




<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.5" href="#section-5.5">5.5</a>.  Connectivity Check Transaction Pacing Parameter</span>

   The TRANSACTION_PACING parameter shown in Figure 7 contains only the
   connectivity check pacing value, expressed in milliseconds, as a 32-
   bit unsigned integer.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Type              |             Length            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                            Min Ta                             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type     610
     Length   4
     Min Ta   the minimum connectivity check transaction pacing
              value the host would use

           Figure 7: Format of the TRANSACTION_PACING Parameter

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6" href="#section-5.6">5.6</a>.  Relay and Registration Parameters</span>

   The format of the REG_FROM, RELAY_FROM, and RELAY_TO parameters is
   shown in Figure 8.  All parameters are identical except for the type.
   REG_FROM is the only parameter covered with the signature.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Type              |             Length            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Port              |    Protocol   |     Reserved  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     |                            Address                            |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type       REG_FROM:   950
                RELAY_FROM: 63998
                RELAY_TO:   64002
     Length     20
     Port       transport port number; zero when plain IP is used
     Protocol   IANA assigned, Internet Protocol number.
                17 for UDP, 0 for plain IP




<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


     Reserved   reserved for future use; zero when sent, ignored
                when received
     Address    an IPv6 address or an IPv4 address in "IPv4-Mapped
                IPv6 address" format

   Figure 8: Format of the REG_FROM, RELAY_FROM, and RELAY_TO Parameters

   REG_FROM contains the transport address and protocol from which the
   HIP relay server sees the registration coming.  RELAY_FROM contains
   the address from which the relayed packet was received by the relay
   server and the protocol that was used.  RELAY_TO contains the same
   information about the address to which a packet should be forwarded.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7" href="#section-5.7">5.7</a>.  LOCATOR Parameter</span>

   The generic LOCATOR parameter format is the same as in [<a href="./rfc5206" title="&quot;End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5206</a>].
   However, presenting ICE candidates requires a new locator type.  The
   generic and NAT-traversal-specific locator parameters are illustrated
   in Figure 9.
































<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


      0                   1                   2                   3
      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Type              |            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Traffic Type  |  Locator Type | Locator Length|  Reserved   |P|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       Locator Lifetime                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                            Locator                            |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Traffic Type  |  Loc Type = 2 | Locator Length|  Reserved   |P|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       Locator Lifetime                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Transport Port            |  Transp. Proto|     Kind      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                           Priority                            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                              SPI                              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                            Address                            |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                        Figure 9: LOCATOR Parameter

   The individual fields in the LOCATOR parameter are described in
   Table 2.














<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 24]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   +-----------+----------+--------------------------------------------+
   | Field     | Value(s) | Purpose                                    |
   +-----------+----------+--------------------------------------------+
   | Type      | 193      | Parameter type                             |
   | Length    | Variable | Length in octets, excluding Type and       |
   |           |          | Length fields and padding                  |
   | Traffic   | 0-2      | Is the locator for HIP signaling (1), for  |
   | Type      |          | ESP (2), or for both (0)                   |
   | Locator   | 2        | "Transport address" locator type           |
   | Type      |          |                                            |
   | Locator   | 7        | Length of the fields after Locator         |
   | Length    |          | Lifetime in 4-octet units                  |
   | Reserved  | 0        | Reserved for future extensions             |
   | Preferred | 0 or 1   | Set to 1 for a Locator in R1 if the        |
   | (P) bit   |          | Responder can use it for the rest of the   |
   |           |          | base exchange, otherwise set to zero       |
   | Locator   | Variable | Locator lifetime in seconds                |
   | Lifetime  |          |                                            |
   | Transport | Variable | Transport layer port number                |
   | Port      |          |                                            |
   | Transport | Variable | IANA assigned, transport layer Internet    |
   | Protocol  |          | Protocol number.  Currently only UDP (17)  |
   |           |          | is supported.                              |
   | Kind      | Variable | 0 for host, 1 for server reflexive, 2 for  |
   |           |          | peer reflexive or 3 for relayed address    |
   | Priority  | Variable | Locator's priority as described in         |
   |           |          | [<a href="./rfc5245" title="&quot;Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols&quot;">RFC5245</a>]                                  |
   | SPI       | Variable | Security Parameter Index (SPI) value that  |
   |           |          | the host expects to see in incoming ESP    |
   |           |          | packets that use this locator              |
   | Address   | Variable | IPv6 address or an "IPv4-Mapped IPv6       |
   |           |          | address" format IPv4 address [<a href="./rfc4291" title="&quot;IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture&quot;">RFC4291</a>]     |
   +-----------+----------+--------------------------------------------+

                 Table 2: Fields of the LOCATOR Parameter

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.8" href="#section-5.8">5.8</a>.  RELAY_HMAC Parameter</span>

   The RELAY_HMAC parameter value has the TLV type 65520.  It has the
   same semantics as RVS_HMAC [<a href="./rfc5204" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension&quot;">RFC5204</a>].

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9" href="#section-5.9">5.9</a>.  Registration Types</span>

   The REG_INFO, REG_REQ, REG_RESP, and REG_FAILED parameters contain
   Registration Type [<a href="./rfc5203" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension&quot;">RFC5203</a>] values for HIP relay server registration.

   The value for RELAY_UDP_HIP is 2.




<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 25]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10" href="#section-5.10">5.10</a>.  Notify Packet Types</span>

   A HIP relay server and end-hosts can use NOTIFY packets to signal
   different error conditions.  The new Notify Packet Types [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>]
   defined in this document are shown below.  The Notification Data
   field for the error notifications SHOULD contain the HIP header of
   the rejected packet and SHOULD be empty for the
   CONNECTIVITY_CHECKS_FAILED type.

   NOTIFICATION PARAMETER - ERROR TYPES     Value
   ------------------------------------     -----

   NO_VALID_NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE_PARAMETER      60

      If a HIP relay server does not forward a base exchange packet due
      to missing NAT traversal mode parameter, or the Initiator selects
      a NAT traversal mode that the Responder did not expect, the relay
      or the Responder may send back a NOTIFY error packet with this
      type.


   CONNECTIVITY_CHECKS_FAILED                 61

      Used by the end-hosts to signal that NAT traversal connectivity
      checks failed and did not produce a working path.


   MESSAGE_NOT_RELAYED                        62

      Used by a HIP relay server to signal that is was not able or
      willing to relay a HIP packet.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.11" href="#section-5.11">5.11</a>.  ESP Data Packets</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC3948">RFC3948</a>] describes the UDP encapsulation of the IPsec ESP transport
   and tunnel mode.  On the wire, the HIP ESP packets do not differ from
   the transport mode ESP, and thus the encapsulation of the HIP ESP
   packets is same as the UDP encapsulation transport mode ESP.
   However, the (semantic) difference to Bound End-to-End Tunnel (BEET)
   mode ESP packets used by HIP is that IP header is not used in BEET
   integrity protection calculation.

   During the HIP base exchange, the two peers exchange parameters that
   enable them to define a pair of IPsec ESP security associations (SAs)
   as described in [<a href="./rfc5202" title="&quot;Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)&quot;">RFC5202</a>].  When two peers perform a UDP-encapsulated
   base exchange, they MUST define a pair of IPsec SAs that produces
   UDP-encapsulated ESP data traffic.




<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 26]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   The management of encryption/authentication protocols and SPIs is
   defined in [<a href="./rfc5202" title="&quot;Using the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)&quot;">RFC5202</a>].  The UDP encapsulation format and processing of
   HIP ESP traffic is described in <a href="./rfc5202#section-6.1">Section&nbsp;6.1 of [RFC5202]</a>.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>.  Security Considerations</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>.  Privacy Considerations</span>

   The locators are in plain text format in favor of inspection at HIP-
   aware middleboxes in the future.  The current document does not
   specify encrypted versions of LOCATORs, even though it could be
   beneficial for privacy reasons to avoid disclosing them to
   middleboxes.

   It is also possible that end-users may not want to reveal all
   locators to each other.  For example, tracking the physical location
   of a multihoming end-host may become easier if it reveals all
   locators to its peer during a base exchange.  Also, revealing host
   addresses exposes information about the local topology that may not
   be allowed in all corporate environments.  For these two reasons, an
   end-host may exclude certain host addresses from its LOCATOR
   parameter.  However, such behavior creates non-optimal paths when the
   hosts are located behind the same NAT.  Especially, this could be
   problematic with a legacy NAT that does not support routing from the
   private address realm back to itself through the outer address of the
   NAT.  This scenario is referred to as the hairpin problem [<a href="./rfc5128" title="&quot;State of Peer- to-Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address Translators (NATs)&quot;">RFC5128</a>].
   With such a legacy NAT, the only option left would be to use a
   relayed transport address from a TURN server.

   The use of HIP relay servers and TURN relays can be also useful for
   privacy purposes.  For example, a privacy concerned Responder may
   reveal only its HIP relay server and Relayed candidates to
   Initiators.  This same mechanism also protects the Responder against
   Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks by allowing the Responder to initiate
   new connections even if its relays would be unavailable due to a DoS
   attack.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>.  Opportunistic Mode</span>

   A HIP relay server should have one address per relay client when a
   HIP relay is serving more than one relay client and supports
   opportunistic mode.  Otherwise, it cannot be guaranteed that the HIP
   relay server can deliver the I1 packet to the intended recipient.








<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 27]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.3" href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>.  Base Exchange Replay Protection for HIP Relay Server</span>

   In certain scenarios, it is possible that an attacker, or two
   attackers, can replay an earlier base exchange through a HIP relay
   server by masquerading as the original Initiator and Responder.  The
   attack does not require the attacker(s) to compromise the private
   key(s) of the attacked host(s).  However, for this attack to succeed,
   the Responder has to be disconnected from the HIP relay server.

   The relay can protect itself against replay attacks by becoming
   involved in the base exchange by introducing nonces that the end-
   hosts (Initiator and Responder) are required to sign.  One way to do
   this is to add ECHO_REQUEST_M parameters to the R1 and I2 packets as
   described in [<a href="#ref-HIP-MIDDLE" title="&quot;End-Host Authentication for HIP Middleboxes&quot;">HIP-MIDDLE</a>] and drop the I2 or R2 packets if the
   corresponding ECHO_RESPONSE_M parameters are not present.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.4" href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>.  Demuxing Different HIP Associations</span>

   <a href="./rfc3948#section-5.1">Section&nbsp;5.1 of [RFC3948]</a> describes a security issue for the UDP
   encapsulation in the standard IP tunnel mode when two hosts behind
   different NATs have the same private IP address and initiate
   communication to the same Responder in the public Internet.  The
   Responder cannot distinguish between two hosts, because security
   associations are based on the same inner IP addresses.

   This issue does not exist with the UDP encapsulation of HIP ESP
   transport format because the Responder uses HITs to distinguish
   between different Initiators.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>.  IANA Considerations</span>

   This section is to be interpreted according to [<a href="./rfc5226" title="">RFC5226</a>].

   This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameter Types
   [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>] by assigning new HIP Parameter Type values for the new HIP
   Parameters: RELAY_FROM, RELAY_TO, and REG_FROM (defined in
   <a href="#section-5.6">Section 5.6</a>), RELAY_HMAC (defined in <a href="#section-5.8">Section 5.8</a>), TRANSACTION_PACING
   (defined in <a href="#section-5.5">Section 5.5</a>), and NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE (defined in
   <a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a>).

   This document defines an additional registration type for the HIP
   Registration Extension [<a href="./rfc5203" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension&quot;">RFC5203</a>] that allows registering with a HIP
   relay server for relaying service: RELAY_UDP_HIP (defined in
   <a href="#section-5.9">Section 5.9</a>).

   This document also defines NO_VALID_NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE_PARAMETER,
   CONNECTIVITY_CHECKS_FAILED, and MESSAGE_NOT_RELAYED Notify Packet
   Types [<a href="./rfc5201" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol&quot;">RFC5201</a>] in <a href="#section-5.10">Section 5.10</a>.



<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 28]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   The NAT_TRAVERSAL_MODE parameter has 16-bit unsigned integer fields
   for different modes, for which IANA has created and maintains a new
   sub-registry entitled "HIP NAT Traversal Modes" under the "Host
   Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters".  Initial values for the NAT
   traversal mode registry are given in <a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a>; future assignments
   are to be made through IETF Review [<a href="./rfc5226" title="">RFC5226</a>].  Assignments consist of
   a NAT traversal mode identifier name and its associated value.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>.  Contributors</span>

   This RFC is a product of a design team that also included Marcelo
   Bagnulo and Philip Matthews, who both have made major contributions
   to this document.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>.  Acknowledgments</span>

   Thanks to Jonathan Rosenberg and the rest of the MMUSIC WG folks for
   the excellent work on ICE.  In addition, the authors would like to
   thank Andrei Gurtov, Simon Schuetz, Martin Stiemerling, Lars Eggert,
   Vivien Schmitt, and Abhinav Pathak for their contributions and Tobias
   Heer, Teemu Koponen, Juhana Mattila, Jeffrey M. Ahrenholz, Kristian
   Slavov, Janne Lindqvist, Pekka Nikander, Lauri Silvennoinen, Jukka
   Ylitalo, Juha Heinanen, Joakim Koskela, Samu Varjonen, Dan Wing, and
   Jani Hautakorpi for their comments on this document.

   Miika Komu has been working in the Networking Research group at
   Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT).  The work has
   been funded by Tekes, Telia-Sonera, Elisa, Nokia, the Finnish Defence
   Forces, Ericsson and Birdstep in InfraHIP I and II projects.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>.  References</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.1" href="#section-10.1">10.1</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-RFC4291">RFC4291</a>]     Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
                 Architecture", <a href="./rfc4291">RFC 4291</a>, February 2006.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4423">RFC4423</a>]     Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol
                 (HIP) Architecture", <a href="./rfc4423">RFC 4423</a>, May 2006.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5201">RFC5201</a>]     Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., and T.
                 Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol", <a href="./rfc5201">RFC 5201</a>,
                 April 2008.





<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 29]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-30" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   [<a id="ref-RFC5202">RFC5202</a>]     Jokela, P., Moskowitz, R., and P. Nikander, "Using the
                 Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format
                 with the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)", <a href="./rfc5202">RFC 5202</a>,
                 April 2008.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5203">RFC5203</a>]     Laganier, J., Koponen, T., and L. Eggert, "Host
                 Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension",
                 <a href="./rfc5203">RFC 5203</a>, April 2008.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5204">RFC5204</a>]     Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol
                 (HIP) Rendezvous Extension", <a href="./rfc5204">RFC 5204</a>, April 2008.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5206">RFC5206</a>]     Nikander, P., Henderson, T., Vogt, C., and J. Arkko,
                 "End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host
                 Identity Protocol", <a href="./rfc5206">RFC 5206</a>, April 2008.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5226">RFC5226</a>]     Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
                 an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>,
                 <a href="./rfc5226">RFC 5226</a>, May 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-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>]     Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., and P. Matthews, "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="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.2" href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>.  Informative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-HIP-MIDDLE">HIP-MIDDLE</a>]  Heer, T., Wehrle, K., and M. Komu, "End-Host
                 Authentication for HIP Middleboxes", Work in Progress,
                 February 2009.

   [<a id="ref-MMUSIC-ICE">MMUSIC-ICE</a>]  Rosenberg, J., "Guidelines for Usage of Interactive
                 Connectivity Establishment (ICE) by non Session
                 Initiation Protocol (SIP) Protocols", Work in Progress,
                 July 2008.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3948">RFC3948</a>]     Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and
                 M. Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets",
                 <a href="./rfc3948">RFC 3948</a>, January 2005.



<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 30]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-31" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


   [<a id="ref-RFC4787">RFC4787</a>]     Audet, F. 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-RFC5128">RFC5128</a>]     Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., and D. Kegel, "State of Peer-
                 to-Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address
                 Translators (NATs)", <a href="./rfc5128">RFC 5128</a>, March 2008.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5207">RFC5207</a>]     Stiemerling, M., Quittek, J., and L. Eggert, "NAT and
                 Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol
                 (HIP) Communication", <a href="./rfc5207">RFC 5207</a>, April 2008.








































<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 31]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-32" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>.  Selecting a Value for Check Pacing</span>

   Selecting a suitable value for the connectivity check transaction
   pacing is essential for the performance of connectivity check-based
   NAT traversal.  The value should not be so small that the checks
   cause network congestion or overwhelm the NATs.  On the other hand, a
   pacing value that is too high makes the checks last for a long time,
   thus increasing the connection setup delay.

   The Ta value may be configured by the user in environments where the
   network characteristics are known beforehand.  However, if the
   characteristics are not known, it is recommended that the value is
   adjusted dynamically.  In this case, it's recommended that the hosts
   estimate the round-trip time (RTT) between them and set the minimum
   Ta value so that only two connectivity check messages are sent on
   every RTT.

   One way to estimate the RTT is to use the time it takes for the HIP
   relay server registration exchange to complete; this would give an
   estimate on the registering host's access link's RTT.  Also, the
   I1/R1 exchange could be used for estimating the RTT, but since the R1
   can be cached in the network, or the relaying service can increase
   the delay notably, it is not recommended.




























<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 32]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-33" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B" href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>.  Base Exchange through a Rendezvous Server</span>

   When the Initiator looks up the information of the Responder from
   DNS, it's possible that it discovers a rendezvous server (RVS) record
   [<a href="./rfc5204" title="&quot;Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension&quot;">RFC5204</a>].  In this case, if the Initiator uses NAT traversal methods
   described in this document, it MAY use its own HIP relay server to
   forward HIP traffic to the rendezvous server.  The Initiator will
   send the I1 packet using its HIP relay server, which will then
   forward it to the RVS server of the Responder.  In this case, the
   value of the protocol field in the RELAY_TO parameter MUST be IP
   since RVS does not support UDP-encapsulated base exchange packets.
   The Responder will send the R1 packet directly to the Initiator's HIP
   relay server and the following I2 and R2 packets are also sent
   directly using the relay.

   In case the Initiator is not able to distinguish which records are
   RVS address records and which are Responder's address records (e.g.,
   if the DNS server did not support HIP extensions), the Initiator
   SHOULD first try to contact the Responder directly, without using a
   HIP relay server.  If none of the addresses are reachable, it MAY try
   them out using its own HIP relay server as described above.






























<span class="grey">Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 33]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-34" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5770">RFC 5770</a>               Basic NAT Traversal for HIP            April 2010</span>


Authors' Addresses

   Miika Komu
   Helsinki Institute for Information Technology
   Metsanneidonkuja 4
   Espoo
   Finland
   Phone: +358503841531
   Fax:   +35896949768
   EMail: miika@iki.fi
   URI:   <a href="http://www.hiit.fi/">http://www.hiit.fi/</a>

   Thomas Henderson
   The Boeing Company
   P.O. Box 3707
   Seattle, WA
   USA
   EMail: thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com

   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600
   Finland
   Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
   EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:   <a href="http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/">http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/</a>

   Jan Melen
   Ericsson Research Nomadiclab
   Hirsalantie 11
   02420 Jorvas
   Finland
   Phone: +358 9 2991
   EMail: jan.melen@ericsson.com

   Ari Keranen (editor)
   Ericsson Research Nomadiclab
   Hirsalantie 11
   02420 Jorvas
   Finland
   Phone: +358 9 2991
   EMail: ari.keranen@ericsson.com








Komu, et al.                  Experimental                     [Page 34]
</pre>