1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Zong
Request for Comments: 7264 X. Jiang
Category: Standards Track R. Even
ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei Technologies
Y. Zhang
CoolPad / China Mobile
June 2014
<span class="h1">An Extension to the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol</span>
<span class="h1">to Support Relay Peer Routing</span>
Abstract
This document defines an optional extension to the REsource LOcation
And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol to support the relay peer routing
mode. RELOAD recommends symmetric recursive routing for routing
messages. The new optional extension provides a shorter route for
responses, thereby reducing overhead on intermediate peers. This
document also describes potential cases where this extension can be
used.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7264">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7264</a>.
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology .....................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Overview ........................................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. RPR ........................................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Scenarios Where RPR Can Be Used ............................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.2.1">3.2.1</a>. Managed or Closed P2P Systems .......................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.2.2">3.2.2</a>. Using Bootstrap Nodes as Relay Peers ................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-3.2.3">3.2.3</a>. Wireless Scenarios ..................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Relationship between SRR and RPR ................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. How RPR Works ..............................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. How SRR and RPR Work Together ..............................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. RPR Extensions to RELOAD ........................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Basic Requirements .........................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Modification to RELOAD Message Structure ...................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5.2.1">5.2.1</a>. Extensive Routing Mode ..............................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. Creating a Request .........................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-5.3.1">5.3.1</a>. Creating a Request for RPR ..........................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>. Request and Response Processing ............................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
5.4.1. Destination Peer: Receiving a Request and
Sending a Response ..................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-5.4.2">5.4.2</a>. Sending Peer: Receiving a Response .................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-5.4.3">5.4.3</a>. Relay Peer Processing ..............................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Overlay Configuration Extension ................................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Discovery of Relay Peers .......................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations ........................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. IANA Considerations ............................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. A New RELOAD Forwarding Option ............................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. Acknowledgments ...............................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-11">11</a>. References ....................................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>. Normative References .....................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>. Informative References ...................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Optional Methods to Investigate Peer Connectivity .....<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>. Comparison of Cost of SRR and RPR .....................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#appendix-B.1">B.1</a>. Closed or Managed Networks .................................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#appendix-B.2">B.2</a>. Open Networks ..............................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
The REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol [<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>]
recommends symmetric recursive routing (SRR) for routing messages and
describes the extensions that would be required to support additional
routing algorithms. In addition to SRR, two other routing options --
direct response routing (DRR) and relay peer routing (RPR) -- are
also discussed in <a href="./rfc6940#appendix-A">Appendix A of [RFC6940]</a>. As we show in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>,
RPR is advantageous over SRR in some scenarios in that RPR can reduce
load (CPU and link bandwidth) on intermediate peers. RPR works
better in a network where relay peers are provisioned in advance so
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
that relay peers are publicly reachable in the P2P system. In other
scenarios, using a combination of RPR and SRR together is more likely
to provide benefits than if SRR is used alone.
Note that in this document we focus on the RPR mode and its
extensions to RELOAD to produce a standalone solution. Please refer
to [<a href="./rfc7263" title=""An Extension to the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol to Support Direct Response Routing"">RFC7263</a>] for details on the DRR mode.
We first discuss the problem statement in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>. How to combine
RPR and SRR is presented in <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>. An extension to RELOAD to
support RPR is defined in <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a>. Discovery of relay peers is
introduced in <a href="#section-7">Section 7</a>. Some optional methods to check peer
connectivity are introduced in <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. In <a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>, we give a
comparison of the cost of SRR and RPR in both managed and open
networks.
<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">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
We use terminology and definitions from the base RELOAD specification
[<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>] extensively in this document. We also use terms defined in
the NAT behavior discovery document [<a href="./rfc5780" title=""NAT Behavior Discovery Using Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)"">RFC5780</a>]. Other terms used in
this document are defined inline when used and are also defined below
for reference.
Publicly Reachable: A peer is publicly reachable if it can receive
unsolicited messages from any other peer in the same overlay.
Note: "Publicly" does not mean that the peers must be on the
public Internet, because the RELOAD protocol may be used in a
closed network.
Relay Peer: A relay peer is a type of publicly reachable peer that
can receive unsolicited messages from all other peers in the
overlay and forward the responses from destination peers towards
the sender of the request.
Relay Peer Routing (RPR): "RPR" refers to a routing mode in which
responses to Peer-to-Peer SIP (P2PSIP) requests are sent by the
destination peer to a relay peer transport address that will
forward the responses towards the sending peer. For simplicity,
the abbreviation "RPR" is used in the rest of this document.
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
Symmetric Recursive Routing (SRR): "SRR" refers to a routing mode
in which responses follow the reverse path of the request to get
to the sending peer. For simplicity, the abbreviation "SRR" is
used in the rest of this document.
Direct Response Routing (DRR): "DRR" refers to a routing mode in
which responses to P2PSIP requests are returned to the sending
peer directly from the destination peer based on the sending
peer's own local transport address(es). For simplicity, the
abbreviation "DRR" is used in the rest of this document.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Overview</span>
RELOAD is expected to work under a great number of application
scenarios. The situations where RELOAD is to be deployed differ
greatly. For instance, some deployments are global, such as a
Skype-like system intended to provide public service, while others
run in small-scale closed networks. SRR works in any situation, but
RPR may work better in some specific scenarios.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. RPR</span>
RELOAD is a simple request-response protocol. After sending a
request, a peer waits for a response from a destination peer. There
are several ways for the destination peer to send a response back to
the source peer. In this section, we will provide detailed
information on RPR. Note that the same types of illustrative
settings can be found in <a href="./rfc7263#appendix-B.1">Appendix B.1 of [RFC7263]</a>.
If peer A knows it is behind a NAT or NATs and knows one or more
relay peers with whom they have had prior connections, peer A can try
RPR. Assume that peer A is associated with relay peer R. When
sending the request, peer A includes information describing peer R's
transport address in the request. When peer X receives the request,
peer X sends the response to peer R, which forwards it directly to
peer A on the existing connection. Figure 1 illustrates RPR. Note
that RPR also allows a shorter route for responses compared to SRR;
this means less overhead on intermediate peers. Establishing a
connection to the relay with Transport Layer Security (TLS) requires
multiple round trips. Please refer to <a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a> for a cost
comparison between SRR and RPR.
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
A B C D X R
| Request | | | | |
|----------->| | | | |
| | Request | | | |
| |----------->| | | |
| | | Request | | |
| | |----------->| | |
| | | | Request | |
| | | |----------->| |
| | | | | Response |
| | | | |---------->|
| | | | Response | |
|<-----------+------------+------------+------------+-----------|
| | | | | |
Figure 1: RPR Mode
This technique relies on the relative population of peers such as
peer A that require relay peers, and peers such as peer R that are
capable of serving as relay peers. It also requires a mechanism to
enable peers to know which peers can be used as their relays. This
mechanism may be based on configuration -- for example, as part of
the overlay configuration, an initial list of relay peers can be
supplied. Another option is a response message in which the
responding peer can announce that it can serve as a relay peer.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Scenarios Where RPR Can Be Used</span>
In this section, we will list several scenarios where using RPR would
improve performance.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2.1" href="#section-3.2.1">3.2.1</a>. Managed or Closed P2P Systems</span>
As described in <a href="./rfc7263#section-3.2.1">Section 3.2.1 of [RFC7263]</a>, many P2P systems run in a
closed or managed environment so that network administrators can
better manage their system. For example, the network administrator
can deploy several relay peers that are publicly reachable in the
system and indicate their presence in the configuration file. After
learning where these relay peers are, peers behind NATs can use RPR
with help from these relay peers. Peers MUST also support SRR in
case RPR fails.
Another usage is to install relay peers on the managed network
boundary, allowing external peers to send responses to peers inside
the managed network.
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2.2" href="#section-3.2.2">3.2.2</a>. Using Bootstrap Nodes as Relay Peers</span>
Bootstrap nodes are typically publicly reachable in a RELOAD
architecture. As a result, one possible scenario would be to use the
bootstrap nodes as relay peers for use with RPR. A relay peer SHOULD
be publicly accessible and maintain a direct connection with its
client. As such, bootstrap nodes are well suited to play the role of
relay peers.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2.3" href="#section-3.2.3">3.2.3</a>. Wireless Scenarios</span>
In some mobile deployments, using RPR may help reduce radio battery
usage and bandwidth by the intermediate peers. The service provider
may recommend using RPR based on his knowledge of the topology.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Relationship between SRR and RPR</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. How RPR Works</span>
Peers using RPR MUST maintain a connection with their relay peer(s).
This can be done in the same way as establishing a neighbor
connection between peers using the Attach method [<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>].
A requirement for RPR is that the source peer convey its relay peer's
(or peers') transport address(es) in the request so the destination
peer knows where the relay peers are and will send the response to a
relay peer first. The request MUST also include the requesting
peer's Node-ID or IP address, which enables the relay peer to route
the response back to the right peer.
Note that being a relay peer does not require that the relay peer
have more functionality than an ordinary peer. Relay peers comply
with the same procedure as an ordinary peer to forward messages. The
only difference is that there may be a larger traffic burden on relay
peers. Relay peers can decide whether to accept a new connection
based on their current burden.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. How SRR and RPR Work Together</span>
RPR is not intended to replace SRR. It is better to use these two
modes together to adapt to each peer's specific situation. Note that
the informative suggestions for how to transition between SRR and RPR
are the same as those for DRR. Please refer to <a href="./rfc7263#section-4.2">Section 4.2 of
[RFC7263]</a> for more details. If a relay peer is provided by the
service provider, peers SHOULD prefer RPR over SRR. However, RPR
SHOULD NOT be used in the open Internet or if the administrator does
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
not feel he has enough information about the overlay network
topology. A new overlay configuration element specifying the usage
of RPR is defined in <a href="#section-6">Section 6</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. RPR Extensions to RELOAD</span>
Adding support for RPR requires extensions to the current RELOAD
protocol. In this section, we define the required extensions,
including extensions to message structure and message processing.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Basic Requirements</span>
All peers MUST be able to process requests for routing in SRR and MAY
support RPR routing requests.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Modification to RELOAD Message Structure</span>
RELOAD provides an extensible framework to accommodate future
extensions. In this section, we define an RPR routing option for the
extensive routing mode specified in [<a href="./rfc7263" title=""An Extension to the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol to Support Direct Response Routing"">RFC7263</a>]. The state-keeping
flag [<a href="./rfc7263" title=""An Extension to the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol to Support Direct Response Routing"">RFC7263</a>] is needed to support the RPR mode.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.1" href="#section-5.2.1">5.2.1</a>. Extensive Routing Mode</span>
The new RouteMode value for RPR is defined below for the
ExtensiveRoutingModeOption structure:
enum {(0),DRR(1),RPR(2),(255)} RouteMode;
struct {
RouteMode routemode;
OverlayLinkType transport;
IpAddressPort ipaddressport;
Destination destinations<1..2^8-1>;
} ExtensiveRoutingModeOption;
Note that the DRR value in RouteMode is defined in [<a href="./rfc7263" title=""An Extension to the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol to Support Direct Response Routing"">RFC7263</a>].
RouteMode: refers to which type of routing mode is indicated to the
destination peer.
OverlayLinkType: refers to the transport type that is used to deliver
responses from the destination peer to the relay peer.
IpAddressPort: refers to the transport address that the destination
peer should use for sending responses. This will be a relay peer
address for RPR.
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
Destination: refers to the relay peer itself. If the routing mode is
RPR, then the destination contains two items: the relay peer's
Node-ID and the sending peer's Node-ID.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3" href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. Creating a Request</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3.1" href="#section-5.3.1">5.3.1</a>. Creating a Request for RPR</span>
When using RPR for a transaction, the sending peer MUST set the
IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING flag in the ForwardingHeader. Additionally, the
peer MUST construct and include a ForwardingOption structure in the
ForwardingHeader. When constructing the ForwardingOption structure,
the fields MUST be set as follows:
1) The type MUST be set to extensive_routing_mode.
2) The ExtensiveRoutingModeOption structure MUST be used for the
option field within the ForwardingOption structure. The fields
MUST be defined as follows:
2.1) routemode set to 0x02 (RPR).
2.2) transport set as appropriate for the relay peer.
2.3) ipaddressport set to the transport address of the relay
peer through which the sender wishes the message relayed.
2.4) The destination structure MUST contain two values. The
first MUST be defined as type "node" and set with the
values for the relay peer. The second MUST be defined as
type "node" and set with the sending peer's own values.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4" href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>. Request and Response Processing</span>
This section gives normative text for message processing after RPR is
introduced. Here, we only describe the additional procedures for
supporting RPR. Please refer to [<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>] for RELOAD base
procedures.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.1" href="#section-5.4.1">5.4.1</a>. Destination Peer: Receiving a Request and Sending a Response</span>
When the destination peer receives a request, it will check the
options in the forwarding header. If the destination peer cannot
understand the extensive_routing_mode option in the request, it MUST
attempt to use SRR to return an "Error_Unknown_Extension" response
(defined in Sections <a href="#section-6.3.3.1">6.3.3.1</a> and <a href="#section-14.9">14.9</a> of [<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>]) to the sending
peer.
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
If the routing mode is RPR, the destination peer MUST construct a
destination_list for the response with two entries as defined in
[<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>]. The first entry MUST be set to the relay peer's Node-ID
from the option in the request, and the second entry MUST be the
sending peer's Node-ID from the option in the request.
In the event that the routing mode is set to RPR and there are not
exactly two destinations, the destination peer MUST try to send an
"Error_Unknown_Extension" response (defined in Sections <a href="#section-6.3.3.1">6.3.3.1</a> and
14.9 of [<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>]) to the sending peer using SRR.
After the peer constructs the destination_list for the response, it
sends the response to the transport address, which is indicated in
the ipaddressport field in the option using the specific transport
mode in the ForwardingOption. If the destination peer receives a
retransmit with SRR preference on the message it is trying to respond
to now, the responding peer SHOULD abort the RPR response and
use SRR.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.2" href="#section-5.4.2">5.4.2</a>. Sending Peer: Receiving a Response</span>
Upon receiving a response, the peer follows the rules in [<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>].
If the sender used RPR and did not get a response until the timeout,
it MAY resend the message using either RPR (but with a different
relay peer, if available) or SRR.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4.3" href="#section-5.4.3">5.4.3</a>. Relay Peer Processing</span>
Relay peers are designed to forward responses to peers who are not
publicly reachable. For the routing of the response, this document
still uses the destination_list. The only difference from SRR is
that the destination_list is not the reverse of the via_list.
Instead, it is constructed from the forwarding option as described
below.
When a relay peer receives a response, it MUST follow the rules in
[<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>]. It receives the response, validates the message,
readjusts the destination_list, and forwards the response to the next
hop in the destination_list based on the connection table. There is
no added requirement for the relay peer.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Overlay Configuration Extension</span>
This document uses the new RELOAD overlay configuration element,
"route-mode", inside each "configuration" element, as defined in
<a href="./rfc7263#section-6">Section 6 of [RFC7263]</a>. The route mode MUST be "RPR".
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Discovery of Relay Peers</span>
There are several ways to distribute information about relay peers
throughout the overlay. P2P network providers can deploy some relay
peers and advertise them in the configuration file. With the
configuration file at hand, peers can get relay peers to try RPR.
Another way is to consider the relay peer as a service; some service
advertisement and discovery mechanism can then also be used for
discovering relay peers -- for example, using the same mechanism as
that used in Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) server
discovery as discussed in [<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>]. Another option is to let a peer
advertise its capability to be a relay in the response to an Attach
or Join [<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations</span>
The normative security recommendations of <a href="./rfc6940#section-13">Section 13 of [RFC6940]</a> are
applicable to this document. As a routing alternative, the security
part of RPR conforms to <a href="./rfc6940#section-13.6">Section 13.6 of [RFC6940]</a>, which describes
routing security. RPR behaves like a DRR requesting node towards the
destination node. The RPR relay peer is not necessarily an arbitrary
node -- for example, a managed network, a bootstrap node, or a
configured relay peer; it should be a trusted node, because a trusted
node will be less of a risk, as outlined in <a href="./rfc6940#section-13">Section 13 of [RFC6940]</a>.
In order to address possible DoS attacks, the relay peer SHOULD also
limit the number of maximum connections; this is required in order to
also reduce load on the relay peer, as explained in <a href="#section-4.1">Section 4.1</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. A New RELOAD Forwarding Option</span>
A new RELOAD Forwarding Option type has been added to the "RELOAD
Forwarding Option Registry" defined in [<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>].
Code: 2
Forwarding Option: extensive_routing_mode
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. Acknowledgments</span>
David Bryan helped extensively with this document and helped provide
some of the text, analysis, and ideas contained here. The authors
would like to thank Ted Hardie, Narayanan Vidya, Dondeti Lakshminath,
Bruce Lowekamp, Stephane Bryant, Marc Petit-Huguenin, and Carlos
Jesus Bernardos Cano for their constructive comments.
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-11" href="#section-11">11</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.1" href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC6940">RFC6940</a>] Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S., and
H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)
Base Protocol", <a href="./rfc6940">RFC 6940</a>, January 2014.
[<a id="ref-RFC7263">RFC7263</a>] Zong, N., Jiang, X., Even, R., and Y. Zhang, "An Extension
to the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol
to Support Direct Response Routing", <a href="./rfc7263">RFC 7263</a>, June 2014.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.2" href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC3424">RFC3424</a>] Daigle, L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral
Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address
Translation", <a href="./rfc3424">RFC 3424</a>, November 2002.
[<a id="ref-RFC5780">RFC5780</a>] MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery
Using Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)",
<a href="./rfc5780">RFC 5780</a>, May 2010.
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Optional Methods to Investigate Peer Connectivity</span>
This section is for informational purposes only and provides some
mechanisms that can be used when the configuration information does
not specify if RPR can be used. It summarizes some methods that can
be used by a peer to determine its own network location compared with
NAT. These methods may help a peer to decide which routing mode it
may wish to try. Note that there is no foolproof way to determine
whether a peer is publicly reachable, other than via out-of-band
mechanisms. This document addresses UNilateral Self-Address Fixing
(UNSAF) [<a href="./rfc3424" title=""IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation"">RFC3424</a>] considerations by specifying a fallback plan to SRR
[<a href="./rfc6940" title=""REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol"">RFC6940</a>]. SRR is not an UNSAF mechanism. This document does not
define any new UNSAF mechanisms.
For RPR to function correctly, a peer may attempt to determine
whether it is publicly reachable. If it is not, RPR may be chosen to
route the response with help from relay peers, or the peers should
fall back to SRR. NATs and firewalls are two major contributors to
preventing RPR from functioning properly. There are a number of
techniques by which a peer can get its reflexive address on the
public side of the NAT. After obtaining the reflexive address, a
peer can perform further tests to learn whether the reflexive address
is publicly reachable. If the address appears to be publicly
reachable, the peer to which the address belongs can be a candidate
to serve as a relay peer. Peers that are not publicly reachable may
still use RPR to shorten the response path, with help from relay
peers.
Some conditions that are unique in P2PSIP architecture could be
leveraged to facilitate the tests. In a P2P overlay network, each
peer has only a partial view of the whole network and knows of a few
peers in the overlay. P2P routing algorithms can easily deliver a
request from a sending peer to a peer with whom the sending peer has
no direct connection. This makes it easy for a peer to ask other
peers to send unsolicited messages back to the requester.
The approaches for a peer to get the addresses needed for further
tests, as well as the test for learning whether a peer may be
publicly reachable, are the same as those for DRR. Please refer to
<a href="./rfc7263#appendix-A">Appendix A of [RFC7263]</a> for more details.
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B" href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>. Comparison of Cost of SRR and RPR</span>
The major advantage of using RPR is that it reduces the number of
intermediate peers traversed by the response. This reduces the load,
such as processing and communication bandwidth, on those peers'
resources.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B.1" href="#appendix-B.1">B.1</a>. Closed or Managed Networks</span>
As described in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>, many P2P systems run in a closed or
managed environment (e.g., carrier networks), so network
administrators would know that they could safely use RPR.
The number of hops for a response in SRR and in RPR are listed in the
following table. Note that the same types of illustrative settings
can be found in <a href="./rfc7263#appendix-B.1">Appendix B.1 of [RFC7263]</a>.
Mode | Success | No. of Hops | No. of Msgs
------------------------------------------------
SRR | Yes | log(N) | log(N)
RPR | Yes | 2 | 2
RPR (DTLS) | Yes | 2 | 7+2
Table 1: Comparison of SRR and RPR in Closed Networks
From the above comparison, it is clear that:
1) In most cases when the number of peers (N) > 4 (2^2), RPR uses
fewer hops than SRR. Using a shorter route means less overhead
and resource usage on intermediate peers, which is an important
consideration for adopting RPR in the cases where such resources
as CPU and bandwidth are limited, e.g., the case of mobile,
wireless networks.
2) In the cases when N > 512 (2^9), RPR also uses fewer messages
than SRR.
3) In the cases when N < 512, RPR uses more messages than SRR (but
still uses fewer hops than SRR), so the consideration of whether
to use RPR or SRR depends on other factors such as using less
resources (bandwidth and processing) from the intermediate peers.
<a href="#section-4">Section 4</a> provides use cases where RPR has a better chance of
working or where the considerations of intermediary resources are
important.
<span class="grey">Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7264">RFC 7264</a> P2PSIP RPR June 2014</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B.2" href="#appendix-B.2">B.2</a>. Open Networks</span>
In open networks (e.g., the Internet) where RPR is not guaranteed to
work, RPR can fall back to SRR if it fails after trial, as described
in <a href="#section-4.2">Section 4.2</a>. Based on the same settings as those listed in
<a href="#appendix-B.1">Appendix B.1</a>, the number of hops, as well as the number of messages
for a response in SRR and RPR, are listed in the following table:
Mode | Success | No. of Hops | No. of Msgs
----------------------------------------------------------------
SRR | Yes | log(N) | log(N)
RPR | Yes | 2 | 2
| Fail & fall back to SRR | 2+log(N) | 2+log(N)
RPR (DTLS) | Yes | 2 | 7+2
| Fail & fall back to SRR | 2+log(N) | 9+log(N)
Table 2: Comparison of SRR and RPR in Open Networks
From the above comparison, it can be observed that trying to first
use RPR could still provide an overall number of hops lower than
directly using SRR. The detailed analysis is the same as that for
DRR and can be found in [<a href="./rfc7263" title=""An Extension to the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol to Support Direct Response Routing"">RFC7263</a>].
Authors' Addresses
Ning Zong
Huawei Technologies
EMail: zongning@huawei.com
Xingfeng Jiang
Huawei Technologies
EMail: jiang.x.f@huawei.com
Roni Even
Huawei Technologies
EMail: roni.even@mail01.huawei.com
Yunfei Zhang
CoolPad / China Mobile
EMail: hishigh@gmail.com
Zong, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
</pre>
|
