wdiff rfc7264.original rfc7264.txt

P2PSIP
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Zong, Ed.
Internet-Draft Zong
Request for Comments: 7264 X. Jiang
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track R. Even
Expires: April 24, 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei Technologies
Y. Zhang
CoolPad
October 21, 2013 / China Mobile
June 2014

An Extension to the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol
to Support Relay Peer Routing
draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-11

Abstract

This document proposes 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
responses, thereby reducing the overhead on intermediate peers and peers. This
document also describes the potential use cases where this extension can be
used.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7264.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ....................................................3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .....................................................4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ........................................................5
3.1. RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ........................................................5
3.2. Scenarios where Where RPR can be used . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Can Be Used ............................6
3.2.1. Managed or closed Closed P2P systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Systems .......................6
3.2.2. Using bootstrap nodes Bootstrap Nodes as relay peers . . . . . . . . 5 Relay Peers ................7
3.2.3. Wireless scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Scenarios ..................................7
4. Relationship between SRR and RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ................................7
4.1. How RPR works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Works ..............................................7
4.2. How SRR and RPR work together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Work Together ..............................7
5. Comparison on cost of SRR and RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Closed or managed networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Open networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. RPR extensions Extensions to RELOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. ........................................8
5.1. Basic requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Requirements .........................................8
5.2. Modification to RELOAD message structure . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.1. State-keeping flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.2. Message Structure ...................8
5.2.1. Extensive routing mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Routing Mode ..............................8
5.3. Creating a request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3.1. Request .........................................9
5.3.1. Creating a request Request for RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4. ..........................9
5.4. Request and response processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.4.1. Response Processing ............................9
5.4.1. Destination peer: receiving Peer: Receiving a request Request and sending
Sending a
response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.4.2. Response ..................................9
5.4.2. Sending peer: receiving Peer: Receiving a response . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4.3. Response .................10
5.4.3. Relay peer processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Peer Processing ..............................10
6. Overlay configuration extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Configuration Extension ................................10
7. Discovery of relay peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Relay Peers .......................................11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. ........................................11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. ............................................11
9.1. A new New RELOAD Forwarding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. ............................11
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. ...............................................11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. ....................................................12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. .....................................12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ...................................12
Appendix A. Optional methods Methods to investigate peer connectivity . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Investigate Peer Connectivity .....13
Appendix B. Comparison of Cost of SRR and RPR .....................14
B.1. Closed or Managed Networks .................................14
B.2. Open Networks ..............................................15

1. Introduction

The REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol [I-D.ietf-p2psip-
base] [RFC6940]
recommends symmetric recursive routing (SRR) for routing messages and
describes the extensions that would be required to support additional
routing algorithms. Other than In addition to SRR, two other routing options: options --
direct response routing (DRR) and relay peer routing (RPR) -- are
also discussed in Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. [RFC6940]. As we show in section Section 3,
RPR is advantageous over SRR in some scenarios
reducing 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
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 bring provide benefits than if SRR is used alone.

Note that in this document, document we focus on the RPR routing mode and its
extensions to RELOAD to produce a standalone solution. Please refer
to DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr] [RFC7263] for details on the DRR routing mode.

We first discuss the problem statement in Section 3, then how 3. How to combine
RPR and SRR is presented in Section 4. In Section 5, we give
comparison on the cost of SRR and RPR in both managed and open
networks. An extension to RELOAD to
support RPR is proposed defined in Section 6. 5. Discovery of relay peers is
introduced in Section 7. Some optional methods to check peer
connectivity are introduced in Appendix A. In Appendix B, we give a
comparison of the cost of SRR and RPR in both managed and open
networks.

2. Terminology

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

We use the terminology and definitions from the RELOAD base draft
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] RELOAD specification
[RFC6940] extensively in this document. We also use terms defined in
the NAT behavior discovery document [RFC5780]. 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" "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 P2PSIP Peer-to-Peer SIP (P2PSIP) requests are sent by the
destination peer to a relay peer transport address who that will
forward the responses towards the sending peer. For simplicity,
the abbreviation RPR "RPR" is used instead in the rest of the this document.

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 "SRR" is
used
instead 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.

3. Overview

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
Skype-like system intended to provide public service, while others
run in small-scale closed networks of small scale. networks. SRR works in any situation, but
RPR may work better in some specific scenarios.

3.1. RPR

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 DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr]. Appendix B.1 of [RFC7263].

If peer A knows it is behind a NAT or NATs, NATs and knows one or more
relay peers with whom they have a 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 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
peer A on the existing connection. Figure 1 illustrates RPR. Note
that RPR also allows a shorter route for responses compared to SRR, which SRR;
this means less overhead on intermediate peers. Establishing a
connection to the relay with TLS Transport Layer Security (TLS) requires
multiple round trips. Please refer to
Section 5 Appendix B for a cost
comparison between SRR and RPR.

A B C D X R
| Request | | | | |
|----------->| | | | |
| | Request | | | |
| |----------->| | | |
| | | Request | | |
| | |----------->| | |
| | | | Request | |
| | | |----------->| |
| | | | | Response |
| | | | |---------->|
| | | | Response | |
|<-----------+------------+------------+------------+-----------|
| | | | | |

Figure 1. 1: RPR routing mode 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 a 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, configuration -- for example example, as part of
the overlay configuration configuration, an initial list of relay peers can be
supplied. Another option is in a response message, message in which the
responding peer can announce that it can serve as a relay peer.

3.2. Scenarios where Where RPR can be used Can Be Used

In this section, we will list several scenarios where using RPR would
provide an improved
improve performance.

3.2.1. Managed or closed Closed P2P systems Systems

As described in Section 3.2.1 of DRR draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr], [RFC7263], 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 which 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 the 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
boundary, allowing external peers to send responses to peers inside
the managed network.

3.2.2. Using bootstrap nodes Bootstrap Nodes as relay peers Relay Peers

Bootstrap nodes are typically publicly reachable in a RELOAD
architecture. As a result, one possible architecture 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.

3.2.3. Wireless scenarios Scenarios

In some mobile deployments, using RPR may help reducing reduce radio battery
usage and bandwidth by the intermediate peers. The service provider
may recommend using RPR based on his/her his knowledge of the topology.

4. Relationship between SRR and RPR

4.1. How RPR works Works

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 by using the Attach method. method [RFC6940].

A requirement for RPR is for that the source peer to convey their its relay
peer peer's
(or peers) peers') transport address address(es) in the request, request so the destination
peer knows where the relay peer peers are and will send the response to a
relay peer first. The request SHOULD include MUST also include the requesting peer
information enabling
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 has
have more functionality than an ordinary peer. As discussed later, relay 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.

4.2. How SRR and RPR work together Work Together

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 on for how to transition between SRR and RPR
are the same with that of as those for DRR. Please refer to DRR document [I-D
.ietf-p2psip-drr] Section 4.2 of
[RFC7263] for more details. If a relay peer is provided by the
service provider, peers MAY SHOULD prefer RPR over SRR. Otherwise,
using However, RPR
SHOULD NOT be discouraged used in the open Internet or if the administrator does
not feel he have has enough information about the
overlay. overlay network
topology. A new overlay configuration element specifying the usage
of
DRR RPR is defined in Section 7. 6.

5. Comparison on cost of SRR and RPR

The major advantage of the use of Extensions to RELOAD

Adding support for RPR is that it reduces requires extensions to the number
of intermediate peers traversed by the response. By doing that, it
reduces current RELOAD
protocol. In this section, we define the load on those peers' resources like processing required extensions,
including extensions to message structure and
communication bandwidth. message processing.

5.1. Closed or managed networks

As described in Section 3, many P2P systems run in a closed or
managed environment (e.g., carrier networks) so that network
administrators would know that they could safely use RPR.

The number of hops Basic Requirements

All peers MUST be able to process requests for a response routing in SRR and MAY
support RPR are listed routing requests.

5.2. Modification to RELOAD Message Structure

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 [RFC7263]. The state-keeping
flag [RFC7263] is needed to support the
following table. RPR mode.

5.2.1. Extensive Routing Mode

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 same illustrative settings can be
found in DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].

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 value in closed networks

From the above comparison, it RouteMode is clear that:

1) In most cases when N > 4 (2^2), RPR uses fewer hops than SRR.
Using a shorter route means less overhead and resource usage on
intermediate peers, defined in [RFC7263].

RouteMode: refers to which type of routing mode is an important consideration for adopting
RPR in the cases where indicated to the resources such as CPU and bandwidth are
limited, e.g.,
destination peer.

OverlayLinkType: refers to the case of mobile, wireless networks.

2) In transport type that is used to deliver
responses from the cases when N > 512 (2^9), RPR also uses fewer messages than
SRR.

3) In destination peer to the cases when N < 512, RPR uses more messages than SRR (but
still uses fewer hops than SRR). So relay peer.

IpAddressPort: refers to the consideration on whether
using RPR or SRR depends on other factors like using less resources
(bandwidth and processing) from transport address that the intermediate peers. Section 4
provides destination
peer should use cases where RPR has better chance for sending responses. This will be a relay peer
address for RPR.

Destination: refers to work or where the
intermediary resources considerations are important.

5.2. Open networks

In open networks (e.g., Internet) where RPR relay peer itself. If the routing mode is not guaranteed to
work, RPR can fall back to SRR if it fails after trial, as described
in Section 4. Based on
RPR, then the same settings of Section 5.1, destination contains two items: the number
of hops, number of messages relay peer's
Node-ID and the sending peer's Node-ID.

5.3. Creating a Request

5.3.1. Creating a Request for RPR

When using RPR for a response transaction, the sending peer MUST set the
IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING flag in SRR the ForwardingHeader. Additionally, the
peer MUST construct and RPR are listed include a ForwardingOption structure in the following table.

Table 2. Comparison of SRR and RPR in open networks

From
ForwardingHeader. When constructing the above comparison, it can ForwardingOption structure,
the fields MUST 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 same set as DRR case and
can follows:

1) The type MUST be found in DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].

6. RPR extensions set to RELOAD

Adding support extensive_routing_mode.

2) The ExtensiveRoutingModeOption structure MUST be used for RPR requires extensions to the current RELOAD
protocol. In this section, we define the extensions required to
option field within the
protocol, including extensions to message structure and to message
processing.

6.1. Basic requirements

All peers ForwardingOption structure. The fields
MUST be able defined as follows:

2.1) routemode set to process requests 0x02 (RPR).

2.2) transport set as appropriate for routing in SRR, and
MAY support RPR routing requests.

6.2. Modification to RELOAD message structure

RELOAD provides an extensible framework to accommodate future
extensions. In this section, we define a ForwardingOption structure
and present a state-keeping flag the relay peer.

2.3) ipaddressport set to support RPR mode.

6.2.1. State-keeping flag

flag : 0x08 IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING

If IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING is set, any the transport address of the relay
peer receiving this message and through which is not the destination of sender wishes the message SHOULD forward relayed.

2.4) The destination structure MUST contain two values. The
first MUST be defined as type "node" and set with the
message
values for the relay peer. The second MUST be defined as
type "node" and set with the full via_list sending peer's own values.

5.4. Request and SHOULD NOT maintain any internal
state.

6.2.2. Extensive routing mode

We first define a new type to define the new option,
extensive_routing_mode:

The option value is illustrated as below, defining 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 DRR value in RouteMode is defined in DRR document [I-D
.ietf-p2psip-drr].

RouteMode: refers to which type of routing mode Response Processing

This section gives normative text for message processing after RPR is indicated to the
destination peer.

OverlayLinkType: refers to
introduced. Here, we only describe the transport type which is used additional procedures for
supporting RPR. Please refer to
deliver responses from [RFC6940] for RELOAD base
procedures.

5.4.1. Destination Peer: Receiving a Request and Sending a Response

When the destination peer to receives a request, it will check the relay peer.

IpAddressPort: refers to
options in the transport address that forwarding header. If the destination peer should cannot
understand the extensive_routing_mode option in the request, it MUST
attempt to use SRR to send the return an "Error_Unknown_Extension" response to. This will be a relay peer
address for RPR.

Destination: refers
(defined in Sections 6.3.3.1 and 14.9 of [RFC6940]) to the relay peer itself. sending
peer.

If the routing mode is RPR, then the destination contains two destinations, which are the
relay peer's Node-ID and the sending peer's Node-ID.

6.3. Creating a request

6.3.1. Creating peer MUST construct a request for RPR

When using RPR
destination_list for a transaction, the sending peer response with two entries as defined in
[RFC6940]. The first entry MUST be set to the
IGNORE-STATE-KEEPING flag relay peer's Node-ID
from the option in the ForwardingHeader. Additionally, request, and the
peer second entry MUST construct and include a ForwardingOptions structure be the
sending peer's Node-ID from the option in the
ForwardingHeader. When constructing request.

In the ForwardingOption structure, event that 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 ForwardingOptions 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
that the sender wishes the message to be relayed through.

2.4) 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.

6.4. Request and response processing

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 [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] for RELOAD
base procedures.

6.4.1. Destination peer: receiving a request and sending a response

When the destination peer receives a request, it will check the
options in the forwarding header. If the destination peer can not
understand extensive_routing_mode option in the request, it MUST
attempt using SRR to return an "Error_Unknown_Extension" response
(defined in Section 6.3.3.1 and Section 14.9 of [I-D.ietf-p2psip-
base]) to the sending peer.

If the routing mode is RPR, the destination peer MUST construct a
destination_list for the response with two entries. The first MUST
be set to the relay peer Node-ID from the option in the request and
the second MUST be the sending peer Node-ID from the option of the
request.

In the event that the routing mode is 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 Section Sections 6.3.3.1 and
Section
14.9 of [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]) [RFC6940]) to the sending peer using SRR.

After the peer constructs the destination_list for the response, it
sends the response to the transport address address, which is indicated in
the ipaddressport field in the option using the specific transport
mode in the Forwardingoption. ForwardingOption. If the destination peer receives a
retransmit with SRR preference on the message it is trying to
response respond
to now, the responding peer SHOULD abort the RPR response and
use SRR.

6.4.2.

5.4.2. Sending peer: receiving Peer: Receiving a response Response

Upon receiving a response, the peer follows the rules in [I-D.ietf-
p2psip-base]. [RFC6940].
If the sender used RPR and does did not get a response until the timeout,
it MAY either resend the message using either RPR but (but with a different
relay peer (if available), peer, if available) or resend the message
using SRR.

6.4.3.

5.4.3. Relay peer processing Peer Processing

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
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].
[RFC6940]. It receives the response, validates the message, re-adjust
readjusts the destination_list destination_list, and forward 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.

6. Overlay configuration extension Configuration Extension

This document uses the new RELOAD overlay configuration element,
"route-mode", inside each "configuration" element, as defined in
Section 7 6 of the DRR document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].

8. [RFC7263]. The route mode MUST be "RPR".

7. Discovery of relay peers Relay Peers

There are several ways to distribute the 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 and then service; some service
advertisement and discovery mechanism can then also be used for
discovering relay peers, peers -- for example, using the same mechanism as
that used in TURN Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) server
discovery as discussed in base RELOAD [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. [RFC6940]. Another option is to let a peer
advertise its capability to be a relay in the response to ATTACH an Attach
or JOIN.

9. Join [RFC6940].

8. Security Considerations

The normative security recommendations of Section 13 of base draft
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] [RFC6940] are
applicable to this document. As a routing alternative, the security
part of RPR conforms to Section 13.6 of the
base draft [RFC6940], which describes
routing security. RPR behaves like a DRR requesting node towards the
destination node. The RPR relay node peer is not necessarily an arbitrary
node but SHOULD be -- for example, a trusted one (managed managed network, a bootstrap nodes node, or a
configured relay) which will make relay peer; it should be a trusted node, because a trusted
node will be less of a
risk risk, as outlined in section13 Section 13 of [RFC6940].

In order to address possible DoS attacks, the based draft.

10. 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 Section 4.1.

9. IANA Considerations

10.1.

9.1. A new New RELOAD Forwarding Option

A new RELOAD Forwarding Option type is has been added to the "RELOAD
Forwarding Option
Registry Registry" defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].

Type: 0x02 - [RFC6940].

Code: 2
Forwarding Option: extensive_routing_mode

11.

10. Acknowledgments

David Bryan has helped extensively with this document, 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 Petit-Huguenin, and Carlos
Jesus Bernardos Cano for their constructive comments.

12.

11. References

12.1.

11.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]

[RFC6940] Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S., and
H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)
Base Protocol", draft-ietf-p2psip-base-26 (work in
progress), February 2013.

[I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr] RFC 6940, January 2014.

[RFC7263] Zong, N., Jiang, X., Even, R. R., and Y. Zhang, Y., "An extension Extension
to RELOAD the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Protocol
to support Support Direct Response Routing", draft-
ietf-p2psip-drr-11 (work in progress), October 2013.

12.2. RFC 7263, June 2014.

11.2. Informative References

[RFC5780] MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery
Using STUN", RFC5780, May 2010.

[RFC3424] Daigle, L., L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral
Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address
Translation", RFC3424, RFC 3424, November 2002.

13. References

[RFC5780] MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery
Using Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)",
RFC 5780, May 2010.

Appendix A. Optional methods Methods to investigate peer connectivity Investigate Peer Connectivity

This section is for informational purposes only for providing and provides some
mechanisms that can be used when the configuration information does
not specify if RPR can be used. It summarizes some methods which 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) [RFC3424] considerations by specifying a fallback plan to SRR
[RFC6940]. 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
be used for easily deliver a
request from a sending peer to determine its own network location compared a peer with NAT. These methods may help whom the sending peer has
no direct connection. This makes it easy for a peer to decide which routing mode
it may wish ask other
peers to try. Note that there is no foolproof way send unsolicited messages back to determine
if the requester.

The approaches for a peer is publically reachable, other than via out-of-band
mechanisms. This document to get the addresses needed for further
tests, as well as the UNSAF [RFC3424] concerns by
specifying test for learning whether a fallback plan peer may be
publicly reachable, are the same as those for DRR. Please refer to
Appendix A of [RFC7263] for more details.

Appendix B. Comparison of Cost of SRR [p2psip-base-draft]. SRR is not an
UNSAF mechanism. and RPR

The document does not define any new UNSAF
mechanisms.

For major advantage of using RPR to function correctly, a peer may attempt to determine
whether it is publicly reachable. If that it is not, RPR may be chosen to
route reduces the response with number of
intermediate peers traversed by the help from relay peers, or response. This reduces the peers
should fall back to SRR. NATs load,
such as processing and firewalls are two major
contributors preventing RPR from functioning properly. There are communication bandwidth, on those peers'
resources.

B.1. Closed or Managed Networks

As described in Section 3, 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 techniques by which hops for a peer can get its reflexive address on
the public side of response in SRR and in RPR are listed in the NAT. After obtaining
following table. Note that the reflexive address, a
peer same types of illustrative settings
can perform further tests to learn whether be found in Appendix B.1 of [RFC7263].

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 reflexive address above comparison, it is publicly reachable. If the address appears to be publicly
reachable, clear that:

1) In most cases when the number of peers to (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 address belongs can be a candidate
to serve cases where such resources
as a relay peer. Peers which CPU and bandwidth are not publicly reachable may
still use limited, e.g., the case of mobile,
wireless networks.

2) In the cases when N > 512 (2^9), RPR to shorten also uses fewer messages
than SRR.

3) In the response path with cases when N < 512, RPR uses more messages than SRR (but
still uses fewer hops than SRR), so the help from relay
peers.

Some conditions are unique in P2PSIP architecture which could be
leveraged consideration of whether
to facilitate use RPR or SRR depends on other factors such as using less
resources (bandwidth and processing) from the tests. In P2P overlay network, each peer
only intermediate peers.
Section 4 provides use cases where RPR has partial a view better chance of
working or where the whole network, and knows considerations of a few
peers in the overlay. P2P routing algorithms can easily deliver a
request from a sending peer to a peer with whom intermediary resources are
important.

B.2. Open Networks

In open networks (e.g., the sending peer has
no direct connection. This makes it easy for a peer to ask other
peers Internet) where RPR is not guaranteed to send unsolicited messages
work, RPR can fall back to SRR if it fails after trial, as described
in Section 4.2. Based on the requester.

The approaches for a peer to get the addresses needed for same settings as those listed in
Appendix B.1, the further
tests, number of hops, as well as the test number of messages
for learning whether a peer may response in SRR and RPR, are listed in the following table:

Table 2: Comparison of SRR and RPR in Open Networks

From the above comparison, it can be
publicly reachable 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 the DRR case. Please refer to DRR
document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr] that for more details.
DRR and can be found in [RFC7263].

Authors' Addresses

Ning Zong (editor)
Huawei Technologies

Email:

EMail: zongning@huawei.com

Xingfeng Jiang
Huawei Technologies

Email:

EMail: jiang.x.f@huawei.com

Roni Even
Huawei Technologies

Email:

EMail: roni.even@mail01.huawei.com

Yunfei Zhang
CoolPad

Email: / China Mobile

EMail: hishigh@gmail.com