summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/rfc/rfc5389.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'rfc/rfc5389.txt')
-rw-r--r--rfc/rfc5389.txt2859
1 files changed, 2859 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/rfc/rfc5389.txt b/rfc/rfc5389.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d2ea7e6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rfc/rfc5389.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2859 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group J. Rosenberg
+Request for Comments: 5389 Cisco
+Obsoletes: 3489 R. Mahy
+Category: Standards Track P. Matthews
+ Unaffiliated
+ D. Wing
+ Cisco
+ October 2008
+
+
+ Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+ Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+ improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+ Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+ and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+ Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) is a protocol that serves
+ as a tool for other protocols in dealing with Network Address
+ Translator (NAT) traversal. It can be used by an endpoint to
+ determine the IP address and port allocated to it by a NAT. It can
+ also be used to check connectivity between two endpoints, and as a
+ keep-alive protocol to maintain NAT bindings. STUN works with many
+ existing NATs, and does not require any special behavior from them.
+
+ STUN is not a NAT traversal solution by itself. Rather, it is a tool
+ to be used in the context of a NAT traversal solution. This is an
+ important change from the previous version of this specification (RFC
+ 3489), which presented STUN as a complete solution.
+
+ This document obsoletes RFC 3489.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+1. Introduction ....................................................4
+2. Evolution from RFC 3489 .........................................4
+3. Overview of Operation ...........................................5
+4. Terminology .....................................................8
+5. Definitions .....................................................8
+6. STUN Message Structure .........................................10
+7. Base Protocol Procedures .......................................12
+ 7.1. Forming a Request or an Indication ........................12
+ 7.2. Sending the Request or Indication .........................13
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ 7.2.1. Sending over UDP ...................................13
+ 7.2.2. Sending over TCP or TLS-over-TCP ...................14
+ 7.3. Receiving a STUN Message ..................................16
+ 7.3.1. Processing a Request ...............................17
+ 7.3.1.1. Forming a Success or Error Response .......18
+ 7.3.1.2. Sending the Success or Error Response .....19
+ 7.3.2. Processing an Indication ...........................19
+ 7.3.3. Processing a Success Response ......................19
+ 7.3.4. Processing an Error Response .......................20
+8. FINGERPRINT Mechanism ..........................................20
+9. DNS Discovery of a Server ......................................21
+10. Authentication and Message-Integrity Mechanisms ...............22
+ 10.1. Short-Term Credential Mechanism ..........................22
+ 10.1.1. Forming a Request or Indication ...................23
+ 10.1.2. Receiving a Request or Indication .................23
+ 10.1.3. Receiving a Response ..............................24
+ 10.2. Long-Term Credential Mechanism ...........................24
+ 10.2.1. Forming a Request .................................25
+ 10.2.1.1. First Request ............................25
+ 10.2.1.2. Subsequent Requests ......................26
+ 10.2.2. Receiving a Request ...............................26
+ 10.2.3. Receiving a Response ..............................27
+11. ALTERNATE-SERVER Mechanism ....................................28
+12. Backwards Compatibility with RFC 3489 .........................28
+ 12.1. Changes to Client Processing .............................29
+ 12.2. Changes to Server Processing .............................29
+13. Basic Server Behavior .........................................30
+14. STUN Usages ...................................................30
+15. STUN Attributes ...............................................31
+ 15.1. MAPPED-ADDRESS ...........................................32
+ 15.2. XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS .......................................33
+ 15.3. USERNAME .................................................34
+ 15.4. MESSAGE-INTEGRITY ........................................34
+ 15.5. FINGERPRINT ..............................................36
+ 15.6. ERROR-CODE ...............................................36
+ 15.7. REALM ....................................................38
+ 15.8. NONCE ....................................................38
+ 15.9. UNKNOWN-ATTRIBUTES .......................................38
+ 15.10. SOFTWARE ................................................39
+ 15.11. ALTERNATE-SERVER ........................................39
+16. Security Considerations .......................................39
+ 16.1. Attacks against the Protocol .............................39
+ 16.1.1. Outside Attacks ...................................39
+ 16.1.2. Inside Attacks ....................................40
+ 16.2. Attacks Affecting the Usage ..............................40
+ 16.2.1. Attack I: Distributed DoS (DDoS) against a
+ Target ............................................41
+ 16.2.2. Attack II: Silencing a Client .....................41
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ 16.2.3. Attack III: Assuming the Identity of a Client .....42
+ 16.2.4. Attack IV: Eavesdropping ..........................42
+ 16.3. Hash Agility Plan ........................................42
+17. IAB Considerations ............................................42
+18. IANA Considerations ...........................................43
+ 18.1. STUN Methods Registry ....................................43
+ 18.2. STUN Attribute Registry ..................................43
+ 18.3. STUN Error Code Registry .................................44
+ 18.4. STUN UDP and TCP Port Numbers ............................45
+19. Changes since RFC 3489 ........................................45
+20. Contributors ..................................................47
+21. Acknowledgements ..............................................47
+22. References ....................................................47
+ 22.1. Normative References .....................................47
+ 22.2. Informative References ...................................48
+Appendix A. C Snippet to Determine STUN Message Types .............50
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ The protocol defined in this specification, Session Traversal
+ Utilities for NAT, provides a tool for dealing with NATs. It
+ provides a means for an endpoint to determine the IP address and port
+ allocated by a NAT that corresponds to its private IP address and
+ port. It also provides a way for an endpoint to keep a NAT binding
+ alive. With some extensions, the protocol can be used to do
+ connectivity checks between two endpoints [MMUSIC-ICE], or to relay
+ packets between two endpoints [BEHAVE-TURN].
+
+ In keeping with its tool nature, this specification defines an
+ extensible packet format, defines operation over several transport
+ protocols, and provides for two forms of authentication.
+
+ STUN is intended to be used in context of one or more NAT traversal
+ solutions. These solutions are known as STUN usages. Each usage
+ describes how STUN is utilized to achieve the NAT traversal solution.
+ Typically, a usage indicates when STUN messages get sent, which
+ optional attributes to include, what server is used, and what
+ authentication mechanism is to be used. Interactive Connectivity
+ Establishment (ICE) [MMUSIC-ICE] is one usage of STUN. SIP Outbound
+ [SIP-OUTBOUND] is another usage of STUN. In some cases, a usage will
+ require extensions to STUN. A STUN extension can be in the form of
+ new methods, attributes, or error response codes. More information
+ on STUN usages can be found in Section 14.
+
+2. Evolution from RFC 3489
+
+ STUN was originally defined in RFC 3489 [RFC3489]. That
+ specification, sometimes referred to as "classic STUN", represented
+ itself as a complete solution to the NAT traversal problem. In that
+ solution, a client would discover whether it was behind a NAT,
+ determine its NAT type, discover its IP address and port on the
+ public side of the outermost NAT, and then utilize that IP address
+ and port within the body of protocols, such as the Session Initiation
+ Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261]. However, experience since the publication
+ of RFC 3489 has found that classic STUN simply does not work
+ sufficiently well to be a deployable solution. The address and port
+ learned through classic STUN are sometimes usable for communications
+ with a peer, and sometimes not. Classic STUN provided no way to
+ discover whether it would, in fact, work or not, and it provided no
+ remedy in cases where it did not. Furthermore, classic STUN's
+ algorithm for classification of NAT types was found to be faulty, as
+ many NATs did not fit cleanly into the types defined there.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ Classic STUN also had a security vulnerability -- attackers could
+ provide the client with incorrect mapped addresses under certain
+ topologies and constraints, and this was fundamentally not solvable
+ through any cryptographic means. Though this problem remains with
+ this specification, those attacks are now mitigated through the use
+ of more complete solutions that make use of STUN.
+
+ For these reasons, this specification obsoletes RFC 3489, and instead
+ describes STUN as a tool that is utilized as part of a complete NAT
+ traversal solution. ICE [MMUSIC-ICE] is a complete NAT traversal
+ solution for protocols based on the offer/answer [RFC3264]
+ methodology, such as SIP. SIP Outbound [SIP-OUTBOUND] is a complete
+ solution for traversal of SIP signaling, and it uses STUN in a very
+ different way. Though it is possible that a protocol may be able to
+ use STUN by itself (classic STUN) as a traversal solution, such usage
+ is not described here and is strongly discouraged for the reasons
+ described above.
+
+ The on-the-wire protocol described here is changed only slightly from
+ classic STUN. The protocol now runs over TCP in addition to UDP.
+ Extensibility was added to the protocol in a more structured way. A
+ magic cookie mechanism for demultiplexing STUN with application
+ protocols was added by stealing 32 bits from the 128-bit transaction
+ ID defined in RFC 3489, allowing the change to be backwards
+ compatible. Mapped addresses are encoded using a new exclusive-or
+ format. There are other, more minor changes. See Section 19 for a
+ more complete listing.
+
+ Due to the change in scope, STUN has also been renamed from "Simple
+ Traversal of UDP through NAT" to "Session Traversal Utilities for
+ NAT". The acronym remains STUN, which is all anyone ever remembers
+ anyway.
+
+3. Overview of Operation
+
+ This section is descriptive only.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ /-----\
+ // STUN \\
+ | Server |
+ \\ //
+ \-----/
+
+
+
+
+ +--------------+ Public Internet
+ ................| NAT 2 |.......................
+ +--------------+
+
+
+
+ +--------------+ Private NET 2
+ ................| NAT 1 |.......................
+ +--------------+
+
+
+
+
+ /-----\
+ // STUN \\
+ | Client |
+ \\ // Private NET 1
+ \-----/
+
+
+ Figure 1: One Possible STUN Configuration
+
+ One possible STUN configuration is shown in Figure 1. In this
+ configuration, there are two entities (called STUN agents) that
+ implement the STUN protocol. The lower agent in the figure is the
+ client, and is connected to private network 1. This network connects
+ to private network 2 through NAT 1. Private network 2 connects to
+ the public Internet through NAT 2. The upper agent in the figure is
+ the server, and resides on the public Internet.
+
+ STUN is a client-server protocol. It supports two types of
+ transactions. One is a request/response transaction in which a
+ client sends a request to a server, and the server returns a
+ response. The second is an indication transaction in which either
+ agent -- client or server -- sends an indication that generates no
+ response. Both types of transactions include a transaction ID, which
+ is a randomly selected 96-bit number. For request/response
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ transactions, this transaction ID allows the client to associate the
+ response with the request that generated it; for indications, the
+ transaction ID serves as a debugging aid.
+
+ All STUN messages start with a fixed header that includes a method, a
+ class, and the transaction ID. The method indicates which of the
+ various requests or indications this is; this specification defines
+ just one method, Binding, but other methods are expected to be
+ defined in other documents. The class indicates whether this is a
+ request, a success response, an error response, or an indication.
+ Following the fixed header comes zero or more attributes, which are
+ Type-Length-Value extensions that convey additional information for
+ the specific message.
+
+ This document defines a single method called Binding. The Binding
+ method can be used either in request/response transactions or in
+ indication transactions. When used in request/response transactions,
+ the Binding method can be used to determine the particular "binding"
+ a NAT has allocated to a STUN client. When used in either request/
+ response or in indication transactions, the Binding method can also
+ be used to keep these "bindings" alive.
+
+ In the Binding request/response transaction, a Binding request is
+ sent from a STUN client to a STUN server. When the Binding request
+ arrives at the STUN server, it may have passed through one or more
+ NATs between the STUN client and the STUN server (in Figure 1, there
+ were two such NATs). As the Binding request message passes through a
+ NAT, the NAT will modify the source transport address (that is, the
+ source IP address and the source port) of the packet. As a result,
+ the source transport address of the request received by the server
+ will be the public IP address and port created by the NAT closest to
+ the server. This is called a reflexive transport address. The STUN
+ server copies that source transport address into an XOR-MAPPED-
+ ADDRESS attribute in the STUN Binding response and sends the Binding
+ response back to the STUN client. As this packet passes back through
+ a NAT, the NAT will modify the destination transport address in the
+ IP header, but the transport address in the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS
+ attribute within the body of the STUN response will remain untouched.
+ In this way, the client can learn its reflexive transport address
+ allocated by the outermost NAT with respect to the STUN server.
+
+ In some usages, STUN must be multiplexed with other protocols (e.g.,
+ [MMUSIC-ICE], [SIP-OUTBOUND]). In these usages, there must be a way
+ to inspect a packet and determine if it is a STUN packet or not.
+ STUN provides three fields in the STUN header with fixed values that
+ can be used for this purpose. If this is not sufficient, then STUN
+ packets can also contain a FINGERPRINT value, which can further be
+ used to distinguish the packets.
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ STUN defines a set of optional procedures that a usage can decide to
+ use, called mechanisms. These mechanisms include DNS discovery, a
+ redirection technique to an alternate server, a fingerprint attribute
+ for demultiplexing, and two authentication and message-integrity
+ exchanges. The authentication mechanisms revolve around the use of a
+ username, password, and message-integrity value. Two authentication
+ mechanisms, the long-term credential mechanism and the short-term
+ credential mechanism, are defined in this specification. Each usage
+ specifies the mechanisms allowed with that usage.
+
+ In the long-term credential mechanism, the client and server share a
+ pre-provisioned username and password and perform a digest challenge/
+ response exchange inspired by (but differing in details) to the one
+ defined for HTTP [RFC2617]. In the short-term credential mechanism,
+ the client and the server exchange a username and password through
+ some out-of-band method prior to the STUN exchange. For example, in
+ the ICE usage [MMUSIC-ICE] the two endpoints use out-of-band
+ signaling to exchange a username and password. These are used to
+ integrity protect and authenticate the request and response. There
+ is no challenge or nonce used.
+
+4. Terminology
+
+ In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
+ "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
+ and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+ [RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant STUN
+ implementations.
+
+5. Definitions
+
+ STUN Agent: A STUN agent is an entity that implements the STUN
+ protocol. The entity can be either a STUN client or a STUN
+ server.
+
+ STUN Client: A STUN client is an entity that sends STUN requests and
+ receives STUN responses. A STUN client can also send indications.
+ In this specification, the terms STUN client and client are
+ synonymous.
+
+ STUN Server: A STUN server is an entity that receives STUN requests
+ and sends STUN responses. A STUN server can also send
+ indications. In this specification, the terms STUN server and
+ server are synonymous.
+
+ Transport Address: The combination of an IP address and port number
+ (such as a UDP or TCP port number).
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ Reflexive Transport Address: A transport address learned by a client
+ that identifies that client as seen by another host on an IP
+ network, typically a STUN server. When there is an intervening
+ NAT between the client and the other host, the reflexive transport
+ address represents the mapped address allocated to the client on
+ the public side of the NAT. Reflexive transport addresses are
+ learned from the mapped address attribute (MAPPED-ADDRESS or XOR-
+ MAPPED-ADDRESS) in STUN responses.
+
+ Mapped Address: Same meaning as reflexive address. This term is
+ retained only for historic reasons and due to the naming of the
+ MAPPED-ADDRESS and XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attributes.
+
+ Long-Term Credential: A username and associated password that
+ represent a shared secret between client and server. Long-term
+ credentials are generally granted to the client when a subscriber
+ enrolls in a service and persist until the subscriber leaves the
+ service or explicitly changes the credential.
+
+ Long-Term Password: The password from a long-term credential.
+
+ Short-Term Credential: A temporary username and associated password
+ that represent a shared secret between client and server. Short-
+ term credentials are obtained through some kind of protocol
+ mechanism between the client and server, preceding the STUN
+ exchange. A short-term credential has an explicit temporal scope,
+ which may be based on a specific amount of time (such as 5
+ minutes) or on an event (such as termination of a SIP dialog).
+ The specific scope of a short-term credential is defined by the
+ application usage.
+
+ Short-Term Password: The password component of a short-term
+ credential.
+
+ STUN Indication: A STUN message that does not receive a response.
+
+ Attribute: The STUN term for a Type-Length-Value (TLV) object that
+ can be added to a STUN message. Attributes are divided into two
+ types: comprehension-required and comprehension-optional. STUN
+ agents can safely ignore comprehension-optional attributes they
+ don't understand, but cannot successfully process a message if it
+ contains comprehension-required attributes that are not
+ understood.
+
+ RTO: Retransmission TimeOut, which defines the initial period of
+ time between transmission of a request and the first retransmit of
+ that request.
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+6. STUN Message Structure
+
+ STUN messages are encoded in binary using network-oriented format
+ (most significant byte or octet first, also commonly known as big-
+ endian). The transmission order is described in detail in Appendix B
+ of RFC 791 [RFC0791]. Unless otherwise noted, numeric constants are
+ in decimal (base 10).
+
+ All STUN messages MUST start with a 20-byte header followed by zero
+ or more Attributes. The STUN header contains a STUN message type,
+ magic cookie, transaction ID, and message length.
+
+ 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
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ |0 0| STUN Message Type | Message Length |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Magic Cookie |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | |
+ | Transaction ID (96 bits) |
+ | |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+ Figure 2: Format of STUN Message Header
+
+ The most significant 2 bits of every STUN message MUST be zeroes.
+ This can be used to differentiate STUN packets from other protocols
+ when STUN is multiplexed with other protocols on the same port.
+
+ The message type defines the message class (request, success
+ response, failure response, or indication) and the message method
+ (the primary function) of the STUN message. Although there are four
+ message classes, there are only two types of transactions in STUN:
+ request/response transactions (which consist of a request message and
+ a response message) and indication transactions (which consist of a
+ single indication message). Response classes are split into error
+ and success responses to aid in quickly processing the STUN message.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ The message type field is decomposed further into the following
+ structure:
+
+ 0 1
+ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+
+ +--+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ |M |M |M|M|M|C|M|M|M|C|M|M|M|M|
+ |11|10|9|8|7|1|6|5|4|0|3|2|1|0|
+ +--+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+ Figure 3: Format of STUN Message Type Field
+
+ Here the bits in the message type field are shown as most significant
+ (M11) through least significant (M0). M11 through M0 represent a 12-
+ bit encoding of the method. C1 and C0 represent a 2-bit encoding of
+ the class. A class of 0b00 is a request, a class of 0b01 is an
+ indication, a class of 0b10 is a success response, and a class of
+ 0b11 is an error response. This specification defines a single
+ method, Binding. The method and class are orthogonal, so that for
+ each method, a request, success response, error response, and
+ indication are possible for that method. Extensions defining new
+ methods MUST indicate which classes are permitted for that method.
+
+ For example, a Binding request has class=0b00 (request) and
+ method=0b000000000001 (Binding) and is encoded into the first 16 bits
+ as 0x0001. A Binding response has class=0b10 (success response) and
+ method=0b000000000001, and is encoded into the first 16 bits as
+ 0x0101.
+
+ Note: This unfortunate encoding is due to assignment of values in
+ [RFC3489] that did not consider encoding Indications, Success, and
+ Errors using bit fields.
+
+ The magic cookie field MUST contain the fixed value 0x2112A442 in
+ network byte order. In RFC 3489 [RFC3489], this field was part of
+ the transaction ID; placing the magic cookie in this location allows
+ a server to detect if the client will understand certain attributes
+ that were added in this revised specification. In addition, it aids
+ in distinguishing STUN packets from packets of other protocols when
+ STUN is multiplexed with those other protocols on the same port.
+
+ The transaction ID is a 96-bit identifier, used to uniquely identify
+ STUN transactions. For request/response transactions, the
+ transaction ID is chosen by the STUN client for the request and
+ echoed by the server in the response. For indications, it is chosen
+ by the agent sending the indication. It primarily serves to
+ correlate requests with responses, though it also plays a small role
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ in helping to prevent certain types of attacks. The server also uses
+ the transaction ID as a key to identify each transaction uniquely
+ across all clients. As such, the transaction ID MUST be uniformly
+ and randomly chosen from the interval 0 .. 2**96-1, and SHOULD be
+ cryptographically random. Resends of the same request reuse the same
+ transaction ID, but the client MUST choose a new transaction ID for
+ new transactions unless the new request is bit-wise identical to the
+ previous request and sent from the same transport address to the same
+ IP address. Success and error responses MUST carry the same
+ transaction ID as their corresponding request. When an agent is
+ acting as a STUN server and STUN client on the same port, the
+ transaction IDs in requests sent by the agent have no relationship to
+ the transaction IDs in requests received by the agent.
+
+ The message length MUST contain the size, in bytes, of the message
+ not including the 20-byte STUN header. Since all STUN attributes are
+ padded to a multiple of 4 bytes, the last 2 bits of this field are
+ always zero. This provides another way to distinguish STUN packets
+ from packets of other protocols.
+
+ Following the STUN fixed portion of the header are zero or more
+ attributes. Each attribute is TLV (Type-Length-Value) encoded. The
+ details of the encoding, and of the attributes themselves are given
+ in Section 15.
+
+7. Base Protocol Procedures
+
+ This section defines the base procedures of the STUN protocol. It
+ describes how messages are formed, how they are sent, and how they
+ are processed when they are received. It also defines the detailed
+ processing of the Binding method. Other sections in this document
+ describe optional procedures that a usage may elect to use in certain
+ situations. Other documents may define other extensions to STUN, by
+ adding new methods, new attributes, or new error response codes.
+
+7.1. Forming a Request or an Indication
+
+ When formulating a request or indication message, the agent MUST
+ follow the rules in Section 6 when creating the header. In addition,
+ the message class MUST be either "Request" or "Indication" (as
+ appropriate), and the method must be either Binding or some method
+ defined in another document.
+
+ The agent then adds any attributes specified by the method or the
+ usage. For example, some usages may specify that the agent use an
+ authentication method (Section 10) or the FINGERPRINT attribute
+ (Section 8).
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ If the agent is sending a request, it SHOULD add a SOFTWARE attribute
+ to the request. Agents MAY include a SOFTWARE attribute in
+ indications, depending on the method. Extensions to STUN should
+ discuss whether SOFTWARE is useful in new indications.
+
+ For the Binding method with no authentication, no attributes are
+ required unless the usage specifies otherwise.
+
+ All STUN messages sent over UDP SHOULD be less than the path MTU, if
+ known. If the path MTU is unknown, messages SHOULD be the smaller of
+ 576 bytes and the first-hop MTU for IPv4 [RFC1122] and 1280 bytes for
+ IPv6 [RFC2460]. This value corresponds to the overall size of the IP
+ packet. Consequently, for IPv4, the actual STUN message would need
+ to be less than 548 bytes (576 minus 20-byte IP header, minus 8-byte
+ UDP header, assuming no IP options are used). STUN provides no
+ ability to handle the case where the request is under the MTU but the
+ response would be larger than the MTU. It is not envisioned that
+ this limitation will be an issue for STUN. The MTU limitation is a
+ SHOULD, and not a MUST, to account for cases where STUN itself is
+ being used to probe for MTU characteristics [BEHAVE-NAT]. Outside of
+ this or similar applications, the MTU constraint MUST be followed.
+
+7.2. Sending the Request or Indication
+
+ The agent then sends the request or indication. This document
+ specifies how to send STUN messages over UDP, TCP, or TLS-over-TCP;
+ other transport protocols may be added in the future. The STUN usage
+ must specify which transport protocol is used, and how the agent
+ determines the IP address and port of the recipient. Section 9
+ describes a DNS-based method of determining the IP address and port
+ of a server that a usage may elect to use. STUN may be used with
+ anycast addresses, but only with UDP and in usages where
+ authentication is not used.
+
+ At any time, a client MAY have multiple outstanding STUN requests
+ with the same STUN server (that is, multiple transactions in
+ progress, with different transaction IDs). Absent other limits to
+ the rate of new transactions (such as those specified by ICE for
+ connectivity checks or when STUN is run over TCP), a client SHOULD
+ space new transactions to a server by RTO and SHOULD limit itself to
+ ten outstanding transactions to the same server.
+
+7.2.1. Sending over UDP
+
+ When running STUN over UDP, it is possible that the STUN message
+ might be dropped by the network. Reliability of STUN request/
+ response transactions is accomplished through retransmissions of the
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ request message by the client application itself. STUN indications
+ are not retransmitted; thus, indication transactions over UDP are not
+ reliable.
+
+ A client SHOULD retransmit a STUN request message starting with an
+ interval of RTO ("Retransmission TimeOut"), doubling after each
+ retransmission. The RTO is an estimate of the round-trip time (RTT),
+ and is computed as described in RFC 2988 [RFC2988], with two
+ exceptions. First, the initial value for RTO SHOULD be configurable
+ (rather than the 3 s recommended in RFC 2988) and SHOULD be greater
+ than 500 ms. The exception cases for this "SHOULD" are when other
+ mechanisms are used to derive congestion thresholds (such as the ones
+ defined in ICE for fixed rate streams), or when STUN is used in non-
+ Internet environments with known network capacities. In fixed-line
+ access links, a value of 500 ms is RECOMMENDED. Second, the value of
+ RTO SHOULD NOT be rounded up to the nearest second. Rather, a 1 ms
+ accuracy SHOULD be maintained. As with TCP, the usage of Karn's
+ algorithm is RECOMMENDED [KARN87]. When applied to STUN, it means
+ that RTT estimates SHOULD NOT be computed from STUN transactions that
+ result in the retransmission of a request.
+
+ The value for RTO SHOULD be cached by a client after the completion
+ of the transaction, and used as the starting value for RTO for the
+ next transaction to the same server (based on equality of IP
+ address). The value SHOULD be considered stale and discarded after
+ 10 minutes.
+
+ Retransmissions continue until a response is received, or until a
+ total of Rc requests have been sent. Rc SHOULD be configurable and
+ SHOULD have a default of 7. If, after the last request, a duration
+ equal to Rm times the RTO has passed without a response (providing
+ ample time to get a response if only this final request actually
+ succeeds), the client SHOULD consider the transaction to have failed.
+ Rm SHOULD be configurable and SHOULD have a default of 16. A STUN
+ transaction over UDP is also considered failed if there has been a
+ hard ICMP error [RFC1122]. For example, assuming an RTO of 500 ms,
+ requests would be sent at times 0 ms, 500 ms, 1500 ms, 3500 ms, 7500
+ ms, 15500 ms, and 31500 ms. If the client has not received a
+ response after 39500 ms, the client will consider the transaction to
+ have timed out.
+
+7.2.2. Sending over TCP or TLS-over-TCP
+
+ For TCP and TLS-over-TCP, the client opens a TCP connection to the
+ server.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ In some usages of STUN, STUN is sent as the only protocol over the
+ TCP connection. In this case, it can be sent without the aid of any
+ additional framing or demultiplexing. In other usages, or with other
+ extensions, it may be multiplexed with other data over a TCP
+ connection. In that case, STUN MUST be run on top of some kind of
+ framing protocol, specified by the usage or extension, which allows
+ for the agent to extract complete STUN messages and complete
+ application layer messages. The STUN service running on the well-
+ known port or ports discovered through the DNS procedures in
+ Section 9 is for STUN alone, and not for STUN multiplexed with other
+ data. Consequently, no framing protocols are used in connections to
+ those servers. When additional framing is utilized, the usage will
+ specify how the client knows to apply it and what port to connect to.
+ For example, in the case of ICE connectivity checks, this information
+ is learned through out-of-band negotiation between client and server.
+
+ When STUN is run by itself over TLS-over-TCP, the
+ TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA ciphersuite MUST be implemented at a
+ minimum. Implementations MAY also support any other ciphersuite.
+ When it receives the TLS Certificate message, the client SHOULD
+ verify the certificate and inspect the site identified by the
+ certificate. If the certificate is invalid or revoked, or if it does
+ not identify the appropriate party, the client MUST NOT send the STUN
+ message or otherwise proceed with the STUN transaction. The client
+ MUST verify the identity of the server. To do that, it follows the
+ identification procedures defined in Section 3.1 of RFC 2818
+ [RFC2818]. Those procedures assume the client is dereferencing a
+ URI. For purposes of usage with this specification, the client
+ treats the domain name or IP address used in Section 8.1 as the host
+ portion of the URI that has been dereferenced. Alternatively, a
+ client MAY be configured with a set of domains or IP addresses that
+ are trusted; if a certificate is received that identifies one of
+ those domains or IP addresses, the client considers the identity of
+ the server to be verified.
+
+ When STUN is run multiplexed with other protocols over a TLS-over-TCP
+ connection, the mandatory ciphersuites and TLS handling procedures
+ operate as defined by those protocols.
+
+ Reliability of STUN over TCP and TLS-over-TCP is handled by TCP
+ itself, and there are no retransmissions at the STUN protocol level.
+ However, for a request/response transaction, if the client has not
+ received a response by Ti seconds after it sent the SYN to establish
+ the connection, it considers the transaction to have timed out. Ti
+ SHOULD be configurable and SHOULD have a default of 39.5s. This
+ value has been chosen to equalize the TCP and UDP timeouts for the
+ default initial RTO.
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ In addition, if the client is unable to establish the TCP connection,
+ or the TCP connection is reset or fails before a response is
+ received, any request/response transaction in progress is considered
+ to have failed.
+
+ The client MAY send multiple transactions over a single TCP (or TLS-
+ over-TCP) connection, and it MAY send another request before
+ receiving a response to the previous. The client SHOULD keep the
+ connection open until it:
+
+ o has no further STUN requests or indications to send over that
+ connection, and
+
+ o has no plans to use any resources (such as a mapped address
+ (MAPPED-ADDRESS or XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS) or relayed address
+ [BEHAVE-TURN]) that were learned though STUN requests sent over
+ that connection, and
+
+ o if multiplexing other application protocols over that port, has
+ finished using that other application, and
+
+ o if using that learned port with a remote peer, has established
+ communications with that remote peer, as is required by some TCP
+ NAT traversal techniques (e.g., [MMUSIC-ICE-TCP]).
+
+ At the server end, the server SHOULD keep the connection open, and
+ let the client close it, unless the server has determined that the
+ connection has timed out (for example, due to the client
+ disconnecting from the network). Bindings learned by the client will
+ remain valid in intervening NATs only while the connection remains
+ open. Only the client knows how long it needs the binding. The
+ server SHOULD NOT close a connection if a request was received over
+ that connection for which a response was not sent. A server MUST NOT
+ ever open a connection back towards the client in order to send a
+ response. Servers SHOULD follow best practices regarding connection
+ management in cases of overload.
+
+7.3. Receiving a STUN Message
+
+ This section specifies the processing of a STUN message. The
+ processing specified here is for STUN messages as defined in this
+ specification; additional rules for backwards compatibility are
+ defined in Section 12. Those additional procedures are optional, and
+ usages can elect to utilize them. First, a set of processing
+ operations is applied that is independent of the class. This is
+ followed by class-specific processing, described in the subsections
+ that follow.
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ When a STUN agent receives a STUN message, it first checks that the
+ message obeys the rules of Section 6. It checks that the first two
+ bits are 0, that the magic cookie field has the correct value, that
+ the message length is sensible, and that the method value is a
+ supported method. It checks that the message class is allowed for
+ the particular method. If the message class is "Success Response" or
+ "Error Response", the agent checks that the transaction ID matches a
+ transaction that is still in progress. If the FINGERPRINT extension
+ is being used, the agent checks that the FINGERPRINT attribute is
+ present and contains the correct value. If any errors are detected,
+ the message is silently discarded. In the case when STUN is being
+ multiplexed with another protocol, an error may indicate that this is
+ not really a STUN message; in this case, the agent should try to
+ parse the message as a different protocol.
+
+ The STUN agent then does any checks that are required by a
+ authentication mechanism that the usage has specified (see
+ Section 10).
+
+ Once the authentication checks are done, the STUN agent checks for
+ unknown attributes and known-but-unexpected attributes in the
+ message. Unknown comprehension-optional attributes MUST be ignored
+ by the agent. Known-but-unexpected attributes SHOULD be ignored by
+ the agent. Unknown comprehension-required attributes cause
+ processing that depends on the message class and is described below.
+
+ At this point, further processing depends on the message class of the
+ request.
+
+7.3.1. Processing a Request
+
+ If the request contains one or more unknown comprehension-required
+ attributes, the server replies with an error response with an error
+ code of 420 (Unknown Attribute), and includes an UNKNOWN-ATTRIBUTES
+ attribute in the response that lists the unknown comprehension-
+ required attributes.
+
+ The server then does any additional checking that the method or the
+ specific usage requires. If all the checks succeed, the server
+ formulates a success response as described below.
+
+ When run over UDP, a request received by the server could be the
+ first request of a transaction, or a retransmission. The server MUST
+ respond to retransmissions such that the following property is
+ preserved: if the client receives the response to the retransmission
+ and not the response that was sent to the original request, the
+ overall state on the client and server is identical to the case where
+ only the response to the original retransmission is received, or
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ where both responses are received (in which case the client will use
+ the first). The easiest way to meet this requirement is for the
+ server to remember all transaction IDs received over UDP and their
+ corresponding responses in the last 40 seconds. However, this
+ requires the server to hold state, and will be inappropriate for any
+ requests which are not authenticated. Another way is to reprocess
+ the request and recompute the response. The latter technique MUST
+ only be applied to requests that are idempotent (a request is
+ considered idempotent when the same request can be safely repeated
+ without impacting the overall state of the system) and result in the
+ same success response for the same request. The Binding method is
+ considered to be idempotent. Note that there are certain rare
+ network events that could cause the reflexive transport address value
+ to change, resulting in a different mapped address in different
+ success responses. Extensions to STUN MUST discuss the implications
+ of request retransmissions on servers that do not store transaction
+ state.
+
+7.3.1.1. Forming a Success or Error Response
+
+ When forming the response (success or error), the server follows the
+ rules of Section 6. The method of the response is the same as that
+ of the request, and the message class is either "Success Response" or
+ "Error Response".
+
+ For an error response, the server MUST add an ERROR-CODE attribute
+ containing the error code specified in the processing above. The
+ reason phrase is not fixed, but SHOULD be something suitable for the
+ error code. For certain errors, additional attributes are added to
+ the message. These attributes are spelled out in the description
+ where the error code is specified. For example, for an error code of
+ 420 (Unknown Attribute), the server MUST include an UNKNOWN-
+ ATTRIBUTES attribute. Certain authentication errors also cause
+ attributes to be added (see Section 10). Extensions may define other
+ errors and/or additional attributes to add in error cases.
+
+ If the server authenticated the request using an authentication
+ mechanism, then the server SHOULD add the appropriate authentication
+ attributes to the response (see Section 10).
+
+ The server also adds any attributes required by the specific method
+ or usage. In addition, the server SHOULD add a SOFTWARE attribute to
+ the message.
+
+ For the Binding method, no additional checking is required unless the
+ usage specifies otherwise. When forming the success response, the
+ server adds a XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute to the response, where the
+ contents of the attribute are the source transport address of the
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ request message. For UDP, this is the source IP address and source
+ UDP port of the request message. For TCP and TLS-over-TCP, this is
+ the source IP address and source TCP port of the TCP connection as
+ seen by the server.
+
+7.3.1.2. Sending the Success or Error Response
+
+ The response (success or error) is sent over the same transport as
+ the request was received on. If the request was received over UDP,
+ the destination IP address and port of the response are the source IP
+ address and port of the received request message, and the source IP
+ address and port of the response are equal to the destination IP
+ address and port of the received request message. If the request was
+ received over TCP or TLS-over-TCP, the response is sent back on the
+ same TCP connection as the request was received on.
+
+7.3.2. Processing an Indication
+
+ If the indication contains unknown comprehension-required attributes,
+ the indication is discarded and processing ceases.
+
+ The agent then does any additional checking that the method or the
+ specific usage requires. If all the checks succeed, the agent then
+ processes the indication. No response is generated for an
+ indication.
+
+ For the Binding method, no additional checking or processing is
+ required, unless the usage specifies otherwise. The mere receipt of
+ the message by the agent has refreshed the "bindings" in the
+ intervening NATs.
+
+ Since indications are not re-transmitted over UDP (unlike requests),
+ there is no need to handle re-transmissions of indications at the
+ sending agent.
+
+7.3.3. Processing a Success Response
+
+ If the success response contains unknown comprehension-required
+ attributes, the response is discarded and the transaction is
+ considered to have failed.
+
+ The client then does any additional checking that the method or the
+ specific usage requires. If all the checks succeed, the client then
+ processes the success response.
+
+ For the Binding method, the client checks that the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS
+ attribute is present in the response. The client checks the address
+ family specified. If it is an unsupported address family, the
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ attribute SHOULD be ignored. If it is an unexpected but supported
+ address family (for example, the Binding transaction was sent over
+ IPv4, but the address family specified is IPv6), then the client MAY
+ accept and use the value.
+
+7.3.4. Processing an Error Response
+
+ If the error response contains unknown comprehension-required
+ attributes, or if the error response does not contain an ERROR-CODE
+ attribute, then the transaction is simply considered to have failed.
+
+ The client then does any processing specified by the authentication
+ mechanism (see Section 10). This may result in a new transaction
+ attempt.
+
+ The processing at this point depends on the error code, the method,
+ and the usage; the following are the default rules:
+
+ o If the error code is 300 through 399, the client SHOULD consider
+ the transaction as failed unless the ALTERNATE-SERVER extension is
+ being used. See Section 11.
+
+ o If the error code is 400 through 499, the client declares the
+ transaction failed; in the case of 420 (Unknown Attribute), the
+ response should contain a UNKNOWN-ATTRIBUTES attribute that gives
+ additional information.
+
+ o If the error code is 500 through 599, the client MAY resend the
+ request; clients that do so MUST limit the number of times they do
+ this.
+
+ Any other error code causes the client to consider the transaction
+ failed.
+
+8. FINGERPRINT Mechanism
+
+ This section describes an optional mechanism for STUN that aids in
+ distinguishing STUN messages from packets of other protocols when the
+ two are multiplexed on the same transport address. This mechanism is
+ optional, and a STUN usage must describe if and when it is used. The
+ FINGERPRINT mechanism is not backwards compatible with RFC 3489, and
+ cannot be used in environments where such compatibility is required.
+
+ In some usages, STUN messages are multiplexed on the same transport
+ address as other protocols, such as the Real Time Transport Protocol
+ (RTP). In order to apply the processing described in Section 7, STUN
+ messages must first be separated from the application packets.
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ Section 6 describes three fixed fields in the STUN header that can be
+ used for this purpose. However, in some cases, these three fixed
+ fields may not be sufficient.
+
+ When the FINGERPRINT extension is used, an agent includes the
+ FINGERPRINT attribute in messages it sends to another agent.
+ Section 15.5 describes the placement and value of this attribute.
+ When the agent receives what it believes is a STUN message, then, in
+ addition to other basic checks, the agent also checks that the
+ message contains a FINGERPRINT attribute and that the attribute
+ contains the correct value. Section 7.3 describes when in the
+ overall processing of a STUN message the FINGERPRINT check is
+ performed. This additional check helps the agent detect messages of
+ other protocols that might otherwise seem to be STUN messages.
+
+9. DNS Discovery of a Server
+
+ This section describes an optional procedure for STUN that allows a
+ client to use DNS to determine the IP address and port of a server.
+ A STUN usage must describe if and when this extension is used. To
+ use this procedure, the client must know a server's domain name and a
+ service name; the usage must also describe how the client obtains
+ these. Hard-coding the domain name of the server into software is
+ NOT RECOMMENDED in case the domain name is lost or needs to change
+ for legal or other reasons.
+
+ When a client wishes to locate a STUN server in the public Internet
+ that accepts Binding request/response transactions, the SRV service
+ name is "stun". When it wishes to locate a STUN server that accepts
+ Binding request/response transactions over a TLS session, the SRV
+ service name is "stuns". STUN usages MAY define additional DNS SRV
+ service names.
+
+ The domain name is resolved to a transport address using the SRV
+ procedures specified in [RFC2782]. The DNS SRV service name is the
+ service name provided as input to this procedure. The protocol in
+ the SRV lookup is the transport protocol the client will run STUN
+ over: "udp" for UDP and "tcp" for TCP. Note that only "tcp" is
+ defined with "stuns" at this time.
+
+ The procedures of RFC 2782 are followed to determine the server to
+ contact. RFC 2782 spells out the details of how a set of SRV records
+ is sorted and then tried. However, RFC 2782 only states that the
+ client should "try to connect to the (protocol, address, service)"
+ without giving any details on what happens in the event of failure.
+ When following these procedures, if the STUN transaction times out
+ without receipt of a response, the client SHOULD retry the request to
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ the next server in the ordered defined by RFC 2782. Such a retry is
+ only possible for request/response transmissions, since indication
+ transactions generate no response or timeout.
+
+ The default port for STUN requests is 3478, for both TCP and UDP.
+
+ Administrators of STUN servers SHOULD use this port in their SRV
+ records for UDP and TCP. In all cases, the port in DNS MUST reflect
+ the one on which the server is listening. The default port for STUN
+ over TLS is 5349. Servers can run STUN over TLS on the same port as
+ STUN over TCP if the server software supports determining whether the
+ initial message is a TLS or STUN message.
+
+ If no SRV records were found, the client performs an A or AAAA record
+ lookup of the domain name. The result will be a list of IP
+ addresses, each of which can be contacted at the default port using
+ UDP or TCP, independent of the STUN usage. For usages that require
+ TLS, the client connects to one of the IP addresses using the default
+ STUN over TLS port.
+
+10. Authentication and Message-Integrity Mechanisms
+
+ This section defines two mechanisms for STUN that a client and server
+ can use to provide authentication and message integrity; these two
+ mechanisms are known as the short-term credential mechanism and the
+ long-term credential mechanism. These two mechanisms are optional,
+ and each usage must specify if and when these mechanisms are used.
+ Consequently, both clients and servers will know which mechanism (if
+ any) to follow based on knowledge of which usage applies. For
+ example, a STUN server on the public Internet supporting ICE would
+ have no authentication, whereas the STUN server functionality in an
+ agent supporting connectivity checks would utilize short-term
+ credentials. An overview of these two mechanisms is given in
+ Section 3.
+
+ Each mechanism specifies the additional processing required to use
+ that mechanism, extending the processing specified in Section 7. The
+ additional processing occurs in three different places: when forming
+ a message, when receiving a message immediately after the basic
+ checks have been performed, and when doing the detailed processing of
+ error responses.
+
+10.1. Short-Term Credential Mechanism
+
+ The short-term credential mechanism assumes that, prior to the STUN
+ transaction, the client and server have used some other protocol to
+ exchange a credential in the form of a username and password. This
+ credential is time-limited. The time limit is defined by the usage.
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ As an example, in the ICE usage [MMUSIC-ICE], the two endpoints use
+ out-of-band signaling to agree on a username and password, and this
+ username and password are applicable for the duration of the media
+ session.
+
+ This credential is used to form a message-integrity check in each
+ request and in many responses. There is no challenge and response as
+ in the long-term mechanism; consequently, replay is prevented by
+ virtue of the time-limited nature of the credential.
+
+10.1.1. Forming a Request or Indication
+
+ For a request or indication message, the agent MUST include the
+ USERNAME and MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attributes in the message. The HMAC
+ for the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute is computed as described in
+ Section 15.4. Note that the password is never included in the
+ request or indication.
+
+10.1.2. Receiving a Request or Indication
+
+ After the agent has done the basic processing of a message, the agent
+ performs the checks listed below in order specified:
+
+ o If the message does not contain both a MESSAGE-INTEGRITY and a
+ USERNAME attribute:
+
+ * If the message is a request, the server MUST reject the request
+ with an error response. This response MUST use an error code
+ of 400 (Bad Request).
+
+ * If the message is an indication, the agent MUST silently
+ discard the indication.
+
+ o If the USERNAME does not contain a username value currently valid
+ within the server:
+
+ * If the message is a request, the server MUST reject the request
+ with an error response. This response MUST use an error code
+ of 401 (Unauthorized).
+
+ * If the message is an indication, the agent MUST silently
+ discard the indication.
+
+ o Using the password associated with the username, compute the value
+ for the message integrity as described in Section 15.4. If the
+ resulting value does not match the contents of the MESSAGE-
+ INTEGRITY attribute:
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ * If the message is a request, the server MUST reject the request
+ with an error response. This response MUST use an error code
+ of 401 (Unauthorized).
+
+ * If the message is an indication, the agent MUST silently
+ discard the indication.
+
+ If these checks pass, the agent continues to process the request or
+ indication. Any response generated by a server MUST include the
+ MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute, computed using the password utilized to
+ authenticate the request. The response MUST NOT contain the USERNAME
+ attribute.
+
+ If any of the checks fail, a server MUST NOT include a MESSAGE-
+ INTEGRITY or USERNAME attribute in the error response. This is
+ because, in these failure cases, the server cannot determine the
+ shared secret necessary to compute MESSAGE-INTEGRITY.
+
+10.1.3. Receiving a Response
+
+ The client looks for the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute in the response.
+ If present, the client computes the message integrity over the
+ response as defined in Section 15.4, using the same password it
+ utilized for the request. If the resulting value matches the
+ contents of the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute, the response is
+ considered authenticated. If the value does not match, or if
+ MESSAGE-INTEGRITY was absent, the response MUST be discarded, as if
+ it was never received. This means that retransmits, if applicable,
+ will continue.
+
+10.2. Long-Term Credential Mechanism
+
+ The long-term credential mechanism relies on a long-term credential,
+ in the form of a username and password that are shared between client
+ and server. The credential is considered long-term since it is
+ assumed that it is provisioned for a user, and remains in effect
+ until the user is no longer a subscriber of the system, or is
+ changed. This is basically a traditional "log-in" username and
+ password given to users.
+
+ Because these usernames and passwords are expected to be valid for
+ extended periods of time, replay prevention is provided in the form
+ of a digest challenge. In this mechanism, the client initially sends
+ a request, without offering any credentials or any integrity checks.
+ The server rejects this request, providing the user a realm (used to
+ guide the user or agent in selection of a username and password) and
+ a nonce. The nonce provides the replay protection. It is a cookie,
+ selected by the server, and encoded in such a way as to indicate a
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ duration of validity or client identity from which it is valid. The
+ client retries the request, this time including its username and the
+ realm, and echoing the nonce provided by the server. The client also
+ includes a message-integrity, which provides an HMAC over the entire
+ request, including the nonce. The server validates the nonce and
+ checks the message integrity. If they match, the request is
+ authenticated. If the nonce is no longer valid, it is considered
+ "stale", and the server rejects the request, providing a new nonce.
+
+ In subsequent requests to the same server, the client reuses the
+ nonce, username, realm, and password it used previously. In this
+ way, subsequent requests are not rejected until the nonce becomes
+ invalid by the server, in which case the rejection provides a new
+ nonce to the client.
+
+ Note that the long-term credential mechanism cannot be used to
+ protect indications, since indications cannot be challenged. Usages
+ utilizing indications must either use a short-term credential or omit
+ authentication and message integrity for them.
+
+ Since the long-term credential mechanism is susceptible to offline
+ dictionary attacks, deployments SHOULD utilize passwords that are
+ difficult to guess. In cases where the credentials are not entered
+ by the user, but are rather placed on a client device during device
+ provisioning, the password SHOULD have at least 128 bits of
+ randomness. In cases where the credentials are entered by the user,
+ they should follow best current practices around password structure.
+
+10.2.1. Forming a Request
+
+ There are two cases when forming a request. In the first case, this
+ is the first request from the client to the server (as identified by
+ its IP address and port). In the second case, the client is
+ submitting a subsequent request once a previous request/response
+ transaction has completed successfully. Forming a request as a
+ consequence of a 401 or 438 error response is covered in
+ Section 10.2.3 and is not considered a "subsequent request" and thus
+ does not utilize the rules described in Section 10.2.1.2.
+
+10.2.1.1. First Request
+
+ If the client has not completed a successful request/response
+ transaction with the server (as identified by hostname, if the DNS
+ procedures of Section 9 are used, else IP address if not), it SHOULD
+ omit the USERNAME, MESSAGE-INTEGRITY, REALM, and NONCE attributes.
+ In other words, the very first request is sent as if there were no
+ authentication or message integrity applied.
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+10.2.1.2. Subsequent Requests
+
+ Once a request/response transaction has completed successfully, the
+ client will have been presented a realm and nonce by the server, and
+ selected a username and password with which it authenticated. The
+ client SHOULD cache the username, password, realm, and nonce for
+ subsequent communications with the server. When the client sends a
+ subsequent request, it SHOULD include the USERNAME, REALM, and NONCE
+ attributes with these cached values. It SHOULD include a MESSAGE-
+ INTEGRITY attribute, computed as described in Section 15.4 using the
+ cached password.
+
+10.2.2. Receiving a Request
+
+ After the server has done the basic processing of a request, it
+ performs the checks listed below in the order specified:
+
+ o If the message does not contain a MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute, the
+ server MUST generate an error response with an error code of 401
+ (Unauthorized). This response MUST include a REALM value. It is
+ RECOMMENDED that the REALM value be the domain name of the
+ provider of the STUN server. The response MUST include a NONCE,
+ selected by the server. The response SHOULD NOT contain a
+ USERNAME or MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute.
+
+ o If the message contains a MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute, but is
+ missing the USERNAME, REALM, or NONCE attribute, the server MUST
+ generate an error response with an error code of 400 (Bad
+ Request). This response SHOULD NOT include a USERNAME, NONCE,
+ REALM, or MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute.
+
+ o If the NONCE is no longer valid, the server MUST generate an error
+ response with an error code of 438 (Stale Nonce). This response
+ MUST include NONCE and REALM attributes and SHOULD NOT include the
+ USERNAME or MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute. Servers can invalidate
+ nonces in order to provide additional security. See Section 4.3
+ of [RFC2617] for guidelines.
+
+ o If the username in the USERNAME attribute is not valid, the server
+ MUST generate an error response with an error code of 401
+ (Unauthorized). This response MUST include a REALM value. It is
+ RECOMMENDED that the REALM value be the domain name of the
+ provider of the STUN server. The response MUST include a NONCE,
+ selected by the server. The response SHOULD NOT contain a
+ USERNAME or MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ o Using the password associated with the username in the USERNAME
+ attribute, compute the value for the message integrity as
+ described in Section 15.4. If the resulting value does not match
+ the contents of the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute, the server MUST
+ reject the request with an error response. This response MUST use
+ an error code of 401 (Unauthorized). It MUST include REALM and
+ NONCE attributes and SHOULD NOT include the USERNAME or MESSAGE-
+ INTEGRITY attribute.
+
+ If these checks pass, the server continues to process the request.
+ Any response generated by the server (excepting the cases described
+ above) MUST include the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute, computed using
+ the username and password utilized to authenticate the request. The
+ REALM, NONCE, and USERNAME attributes SHOULD NOT be included.
+
+10.2.3. Receiving a Response
+
+ If the response is an error response with an error code of 401
+ (Unauthorized), the client SHOULD retry the request with a new
+ transaction. This request MUST contain a USERNAME, determined by the
+ client as the appropriate username for the REALM from the error
+ response. The request MUST contain the REALM, copied from the error
+ response. The request MUST contain the NONCE, copied from the error
+ response. The request MUST contain the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute,
+ computed using the password associated with the username in the
+ USERNAME attribute. The client MUST NOT perform this retry if it is
+ not changing the USERNAME or REALM or its associated password, from
+ the previous attempt.
+
+ If the response is an error response with an error code of 438 (Stale
+ Nonce), the client MUST retry the request, using the new NONCE
+ supplied in the 438 (Stale Nonce) response. This retry MUST also
+ include the USERNAME, REALM, and MESSAGE-INTEGRITY.
+
+ The client looks for the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute in the response
+ (either success or failure). If present, the client computes the
+ message integrity over the response as defined in Section 15.4, using
+ the same password it utilized for the request. If the resulting
+ value matches the contents of the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute, the
+ response is considered authenticated. If the value does not match,
+ or if MESSAGE-INTEGRITY was absent, the response MUST be discarded,
+ as if it was never received. This means that retransmits, if
+ applicable, will continue.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+11. ALTERNATE-SERVER Mechanism
+
+ This section describes a mechanism in STUN that allows a server to
+ redirect a client to another server. This extension is optional, and
+ a usage must define if and when this extension is used.
+
+ A server using this extension redirects a client to another server by
+ replying to a request message with an error response message with an
+ error code of 300 (Try Alternate). The server MUST include an
+ ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute in the error response. The error response
+ message MAY be authenticated; however, there are uses cases for
+ ALTERNATE-SERVER where authentication of the response is not possible
+ or practical.
+
+ A client using this extension handles a 300 (Try Alternate) error
+ code as follows. The client looks for an ALTERNATE-SERVER attribute
+ in the error response. If one is found, then the client considers
+ the current transaction as failed, and reattempts the request with
+ the server specified in the attribute, using the same transport
+ protocol used for the previous request. That request, if
+ authenticated, MUST utilize the same credentials that the client
+ would have used in the request to the server that performed the
+ redirection. If the client has been redirected to a server on which
+ it has already tried this request within the last five minutes, it
+ MUST ignore the redirection and consider the transaction to have
+ failed. This prevents infinite ping-ponging between servers in case
+ of redirection loops.
+
+12. Backwards Compatibility with RFC 3489
+
+ This section defines procedures that allow a degree of backwards
+ compatibility with the original protocol defined in RFC 3489
+ [RFC3489]. This mechanism is optional, meant to be utilized only in
+ cases where a new client can connect to an old server, or vice versa.
+ A usage must define if and when this procedure is used.
+
+ Section 19 lists all the changes between this specification and RFC
+ 3489 [RFC3489]. However, not all of these differences are important,
+ because "classic STUN" was only used in a few specific ways. For the
+ purposes of this extension, the important changes are the following.
+ In RFC 3489:
+
+ o UDP was the only supported transport.
+
+ o The field that is now the magic cookie field was a part of the
+ transaction ID field, and transaction IDs were 128 bits long.
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ o The XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute did not exist, and the Binding
+ method used the MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute instead.
+
+ o There were three comprehension-required attributes, RESPONSE-
+ ADDRESS, CHANGE-REQUEST, and CHANGED-ADDRESS, that have been
+ removed from this specification.
+
+ * CHANGE-REQUEST and CHANGED-ADDRESS are now part of the NAT
+ Behavior Discovery usage [BEHAVE-NAT], and the other is
+ deprecated.
+
+12.1. Changes to Client Processing
+
+ A client that wants to interoperate with an [RFC3489] server SHOULD
+ send a request message that uses the Binding method, contains no
+ attributes, and uses UDP as the transport protocol to the server. If
+ successful, the success response received from the server will
+ contain a MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute rather than an XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS
+ attribute. A client seeking to interoperate with an older server
+ MUST be prepared to receive either. Furthermore, the client MUST
+ ignore any Reserved comprehension-required attributes that might
+ appear in the response. Of the Reserved attributes in Section 18.2,
+ 0x0002, 0x0004, 0x0005, and 0x000B may appear in Binding responses
+ from a server compliant to RFC 3489. Other than this change, the
+ processing of the response is identical to the procedures described
+ above.
+
+12.2. Changes to Server Processing
+
+ A STUN server can detect when a given Binding request message was
+ sent from an RFC 3489 [RFC3489] client by the absence of the correct
+ value in the magic cookie field. When the server detects an RFC 3489
+ client, it SHOULD copy the value seen in the magic cookie field in
+ the Binding request to the magic cookie field in the Binding response
+ message, and insert a MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute instead of an XOR-
+ MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute.
+
+ The client might, in rare situations, include either the RESPONSE-
+ ADDRESS or CHANGE-REQUEST attributes. In these situations, the
+ server will view these as unknown comprehension-required attributes
+ and reply with an error response. Since the mechanisms utilizing
+ those attributes are no longer supported, this behavior is
+ acceptable.
+
+ The RFC 3489 version of STUN lacks both the magic cookie and the
+ FINGERPRINT attribute that allows for a very high probability of
+ correctly identifying STUN messages when multiplexed with other
+ protocols. Therefore, STUN implementations that are backwards
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ compatible with RFC 3489 SHOULD NOT be used in cases where STUN will
+ be multiplexed with another protocol. However, that should not be an
+ issue as such multiplexing was not available in RFC 3489.
+
+13. Basic Server Behavior
+
+ This section defines the behavior of a basic, stand-alone STUN
+ server. A basic STUN server provides clients with server reflexive
+ transport addresses by receiving and replying to STUN Binding
+ requests.
+
+ The STUN server MUST support the Binding method. It SHOULD NOT
+ utilize the short-term or long-term credential mechanism. This is
+ because the work involved in authenticating the request is more than
+ the work in simply processing it. It SHOULD NOT utilize the
+ ALTERNATE-SERVER mechanism for the same reason. It MUST support UDP
+ and TCP. It MAY support STUN over TCP/TLS; however, TLS provides
+ minimal security benefits in this basic mode of operation. It MAY
+ utilize the FINGERPRINT mechanism but MUST NOT require it. Since the
+ stand-alone server only runs STUN, FINGERPRINT provides no benefit.
+ Requiring it would break compatibility with RFC 3489, and such
+ compatibility is desirable in a stand-alone server. Stand-alone STUN
+ servers SHOULD support backwards compatibility with [RFC3489]
+ clients, as described in Section 12.
+
+ It is RECOMMENDED that administrators of STUN servers provide DNS
+ entries for those servers as described in Section 9.
+
+ A basic STUN server is not a solution for NAT traversal by itself.
+ However, it can be utilized as part of a solution through STUN
+ usages. This is discussed further in Section 14.
+
+14. STUN Usages
+
+ STUN by itself is not a solution to the NAT traversal problem.
+ Rather, STUN defines a tool that can be used inside a larger
+ solution. The term "STUN usage" is used for any solution that uses
+ STUN as a component.
+
+ At the time of writing, three STUN usages are defined: Interactive
+ Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [MMUSIC-ICE], Client-initiated
+ connections for SIP [SIP-OUTBOUND], and NAT Behavior Discovery
+ [BEHAVE-NAT]. Other STUN usages may be defined in the future.
+
+ A STUN usage defines how STUN is actually utilized -- when to send
+ requests, what to do with the responses, and which optional
+ procedures defined here (or in an extension to STUN) are to be used.
+ A usage would also define:
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ o Which STUN methods are used.
+
+ o What authentication and message-integrity mechanisms are used.
+
+ o The considerations around manual vs. automatic key derivation for
+ the integrity mechanism, as discussed in [RFC4107].
+
+ o What mechanisms are used to distinguish STUN messages from other
+ messages. When STUN is run over TCP, a framing mechanism may be
+ required.
+
+ o How a STUN client determines the IP address and port of the STUN
+ server.
+
+ o Whether backwards compatibility to RFC 3489 is required.
+
+ o What optional attributes defined here (such as FINGERPRINT and
+ ALTERNATE-SERVER) or in other extensions are required.
+
+ In addition, any STUN usage must consider the security implications
+ of using STUN in that usage. A number of attacks against STUN are
+ known (see the Security Considerations section in this document), and
+ any usage must consider how these attacks can be thwarted or
+ mitigated.
+
+ Finally, a usage must consider whether its usage of STUN is an
+ example of the Unilateral Self-Address Fixing approach to NAT
+ traversal, and if so, address the questions raised in RFC 3424
+ [RFC3424].
+
+15. STUN Attributes
+
+ After the STUN header are zero or more attributes. Each attribute
+ MUST be TLV encoded, with a 16-bit type, 16-bit length, and value.
+ Each STUN attribute MUST end on a 32-bit boundary. As mentioned
+ above, all fields in an attribute are transmitted most significant
+ bit first.
+
+ 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 |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Value (variable) ....
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+ Figure 4: Format of STUN Attributes
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ The value in the length field MUST contain the length of the Value
+ part of the attribute, prior to padding, measured in bytes. Since
+ STUN aligns attributes on 32-bit boundaries, attributes whose content
+ is not a multiple of 4 bytes are padded with 1, 2, or 3 bytes of
+ padding so that its value contains a multiple of 4 bytes. The
+ padding bits are ignored, and may be any value.
+
+ Any attribute type MAY appear more than once in a STUN message.
+ Unless specified otherwise, the order of appearance is significant:
+ only the first occurrence needs to be processed by a receiver, and
+ any duplicates MAY be ignored by a receiver.
+
+ To allow future revisions of this specification to add new attributes
+ if needed, the attribute space is divided into two ranges.
+ Attributes with type values between 0x0000 and 0x7FFF are
+ comprehension-required attributes, which means that the STUN agent
+ cannot successfully process the message unless it understands the
+ attribute. Attributes with type values between 0x8000 and 0xFFFF are
+ comprehension-optional attributes, which means that those attributes
+ can be ignored by the STUN agent if it does not understand them.
+
+ The set of STUN attribute types is maintained by IANA. The initial
+ set defined by this specification is found in Section 18.2.
+
+ The rest of this section describes the format of the various
+ attributes defined in this specification.
+
+15.1. MAPPED-ADDRESS
+
+ The MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute indicates a reflexive transport address
+ of the client. It consists of an 8-bit address family and a 16-bit
+ port, followed by a fixed-length value representing the IP address.
+ If the address family is IPv4, the address MUST be 32 bits. If the
+ address family is IPv6, the address MUST be 128 bits. All fields
+ must be in network byte order.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ The format of the MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute is:
+
+ 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
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Family | Port |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | |
+ | Address (32 bits or 128 bits) |
+ | |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+ Figure 5: Format of MAPPED-ADDRESS Attribute
+
+ The address family can take on the following values:
+
+ 0x01:IPv4
+ 0x02:IPv6
+
+ The first 8 bits of the MAPPED-ADDRESS MUST be set to 0 and MUST be
+ ignored by receivers. These bits are present for aligning parameters
+ on natural 32-bit boundaries.
+
+ This attribute is used only by servers for achieving backwards
+ compatibility with RFC 3489 [RFC3489] clients.
+
+15.2. XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS
+
+ The XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute is identical to the MAPPED-ADDRESS
+ attribute, except that the reflexive transport address is obfuscated
+ through the XOR function.
+
+ The format of the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS is:
+
+ 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
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ |x x x x x x x x| Family | X-Port |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | X-Address (Variable)
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+ Figure 6: Format of XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS Attribute
+
+ The Family represents the IP address family, and is encoded
+ identically to the Family in MAPPED-ADDRESS.
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ X-Port is computed by taking the mapped port in host byte order,
+ XOR'ing it with the most significant 16 bits of the magic cookie, and
+ then the converting the result to network byte order. If the IP
+ address family is IPv4, X-Address is computed by taking the mapped IP
+ address in host byte order, XOR'ing it with the magic cookie, and
+ converting the result to network byte order. If the IP address
+ family is IPv6, X-Address is computed by taking the mapped IP address
+ in host byte order, XOR'ing it with the concatenation of the magic
+ cookie and the 96-bit transaction ID, and converting the result to
+ network byte order.
+
+ The rules for encoding and processing the first 8 bits of the
+ attribute's value, the rules for handling multiple occurrences of the
+ attribute, and the rules for processing address families are the same
+ as for MAPPED-ADDRESS.
+
+ Note: XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS and MAPPED-ADDRESS differ only in their
+ encoding of the transport address. The former encodes the transport
+ address by exclusive-or'ing it with the magic cookie. The latter
+ encodes it directly in binary. RFC 3489 originally specified only
+ MAPPED-ADDRESS. However, deployment experience found that some NATs
+ rewrite the 32-bit binary payloads containing the NAT's public IP
+ address, such as STUN's MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute, in the well-meaning
+ but misguided attempt at providing a generic ALG function. Such
+ behavior interferes with the operation of STUN and also causes
+ failure of STUN's message-integrity checking.
+
+15.3. USERNAME
+
+ The USERNAME attribute is used for message integrity. It identifies
+ the username and password combination used in the message-integrity
+ check.
+
+ The value of USERNAME is a variable-length value. It MUST contain a
+ UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded sequence of less than 513 bytes, and MUST
+ have been processed using SASLprep [RFC4013].
+
+15.4. MESSAGE-INTEGRITY
+
+ The MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute contains an HMAC-SHA1 [RFC2104] of
+ the STUN message. The MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute can be present in
+ any STUN message type. Since it uses the SHA1 hash, the HMAC will be
+ 20 bytes. The text used as input to HMAC is the STUN message,
+ including the header, up to and including the attribute preceding the
+ MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute. With the exception of the FINGERPRINT
+ attribute, which appears after MESSAGE-INTEGRITY, agents MUST ignore
+ all other attributes that follow MESSAGE-INTEGRITY.
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ The key for the HMAC depends on whether long-term or short-term
+ credentials are in use. For long-term credentials, the key is 16
+ bytes:
+
+ key = MD5(username ":" realm ":" SASLprep(password))
+
+ That is, the 16-byte key is formed by taking the MD5 hash of the
+ result of concatenating the following five fields: (1) the username,
+ with any quotes and trailing nulls removed, as taken from the
+ USERNAME attribute (in which case SASLprep has already been applied);
+ (2) a single colon; (3) the realm, with any quotes and trailing nulls
+ removed; (4) a single colon; and (5) the password, with any trailing
+ nulls removed and after processing using SASLprep. For example, if
+ the username was 'user', the realm was 'realm', and the password was
+ 'pass', then the 16-byte HMAC key would be the result of performing
+ an MD5 hash on the string 'user:realm:pass', the resulting hash being
+ 0x8493fbc53ba582fb4c044c456bdc40eb.
+
+ For short-term credentials:
+
+ key = SASLprep(password)
+
+ where MD5 is defined in RFC 1321 [RFC1321] and SASLprep() is defined
+ in RFC 4013 [RFC4013].
+
+ The structure of the key when used with long-term credentials
+ facilitates deployment in systems that also utilize SIP. Typically,
+ SIP systems utilizing SIP's digest authentication mechanism do not
+ actually store the password in the database. Rather, they store a
+ value called H(A1), which is equal to the key defined above.
+
+ Based on the rules above, the hash used to construct MESSAGE-
+ INTEGRITY includes the length field from the STUN message header.
+ Prior to performing the hash, the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute MUST be
+ inserted into the message (with dummy content). The length MUST then
+ be set to point to the length of the message up to, and including,
+ the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute itself, but excluding any attributes
+ after it. Once the computation is performed, the value of the
+ MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute can be filled in, and the value of the
+ length in the STUN header can be set to its correct value -- the
+ length of the entire message. Similarly, when validating the
+ MESSAGE-INTEGRITY, the length field should be adjusted to point to
+ the end of the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute prior to calculating the
+ HMAC. Such adjustment is necessary when attributes, such as
+ FINGERPRINT, appear after MESSAGE-INTEGRITY.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+15.5. FINGERPRINT
+
+ The FINGERPRINT attribute MAY be present in all STUN messages. The
+ value of the attribute is computed as the CRC-32 of the STUN message
+ up to (but excluding) the FINGERPRINT attribute itself, XOR'ed with
+ the 32-bit value 0x5354554e (the XOR helps in cases where an
+ application packet is also using CRC-32 in it). The 32-bit CRC is
+ the one defined in ITU V.42 [ITU.V42.2002], which has a generator
+ polynomial of x32+x26+x23+x22+x16+x12+x11+x10+x8+x7+x5+x4+x2+x+1.
+ When present, the FINGERPRINT attribute MUST be the last attribute in
+ the message, and thus will appear after MESSAGE-INTEGRITY.
+
+ The FINGERPRINT attribute can aid in distinguishing STUN packets from
+ packets of other protocols. See Section 8.
+
+ As with MESSAGE-INTEGRITY, the CRC used in the FINGERPRINT attribute
+ covers the length field from the STUN message header. Therefore,
+ this value must be correct and include the CRC attribute as part of
+ the message length, prior to computation of the CRC. When using the
+ FINGERPRINT attribute in a message, the attribute is first placed
+ into the message with a dummy value, then the CRC is computed, and
+ then the value of the attribute is updated. If the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY
+ attribute is also present, then it must be present with the correct
+ message-integrity value before the CRC is computed, since the CRC is
+ done over the value of the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute as well.
+
+15.6. ERROR-CODE
+
+ The ERROR-CODE attribute is used in error response messages. It
+ contains a numeric error code value in the range of 300 to 699 plus a
+ textual reason phrase encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629], and is consistent
+ in its code assignments and semantics with SIP [RFC3261] and HTTP
+ [RFC2616]. The reason phrase is meant for user consumption, and can
+ be anything appropriate for the error code. Recommended reason
+ phrases for the defined error codes are included in the IANA registry
+ for error codes. The reason phrase MUST be a UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded
+ sequence of less than 128 characters (which can be as long as 763
+ bytes).
+
+ 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
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Reserved, should be 0 |Class| Number |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Reason Phrase (variable) ..
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+ Figure 7: ERROR-CODE Attribute
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ To facilitate processing, the class of the error code (the hundreds
+ digit) is encoded separately from the rest of the code, as shown in
+ Figure 7.
+
+ The Reserved bits SHOULD be 0, and are for alignment on 32-bit
+ boundaries. Receivers MUST ignore these bits. The Class represents
+ the hundreds digit of the error code. The value MUST be between 3
+ and 6. The Number represents the error code modulo 100, and its
+ value MUST be between 0 and 99.
+
+ The following error codes, along with their recommended reason
+ phrases, are defined:
+
+ 300 Try Alternate: The client should contact an alternate server for
+ this request. This error response MUST only be sent if the
+ request included a USERNAME attribute and a valid MESSAGE-
+ INTEGRITY attribute; otherwise, it MUST NOT be sent and error
+ code 400 (Bad Request) is suggested. This error response MUST
+ be protected with the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute, and receivers
+ MUST validate the MESSAGE-INTEGRITY of this response before
+ redirecting themselves to an alternate server.
+
+ Note: Failure to generate and validate message integrity
+ for a 300 response allows an on-path attacker to falsify a
+ 300 response thus causing subsequent STUN messages to be
+ sent to a victim.
+
+ 400 Bad Request: The request was malformed. The client SHOULD NOT
+ retry the request without modification from the previous
+ attempt. The server may not be able to generate a valid
+ MESSAGE-INTEGRITY for this error, so the client MUST NOT expect
+ a valid MESSAGE-INTEGRITY attribute on this response.
+
+ 401 Unauthorized: The request did not contain the correct
+ credentials to proceed. The client should retry the request
+ with proper credentials.
+
+ 420 Unknown Attribute: The server received a STUN packet containing
+ a comprehension-required attribute that it did not understand.
+ The server MUST put this unknown attribute in the UNKNOWN-
+ ATTRIBUTE attribute of its error response.
+
+ 438 Stale Nonce: The NONCE used by the client was no longer valid.
+ The client should retry, using the NONCE provided in the
+ response.
+
+ 500 Server Error: The server has suffered a temporary error. The
+ client should try again.
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+15.7. REALM
+
+ The REALM attribute may be present in requests and responses. It
+ contains text that meets the grammar for "realm-value" as described
+ in RFC 3261 [RFC3261] but without the double quotes and their
+ surrounding whitespace. That is, it is an unquoted realm-value (and
+ is therefore a sequence of qdtext or quoted-pair). It MUST be a
+ UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded sequence of less than 128 characters (which
+ can be as long as 763 bytes), and MUST have been processed using
+ SASLprep [RFC4013].
+
+ Presence of the REALM attribute in a request indicates that long-term
+ credentials are being used for authentication. Presence in certain
+ error responses indicates that the server wishes the client to use a
+ long-term credential for authentication.
+
+15.8. NONCE
+
+ The NONCE attribute may be present in requests and responses. It
+ contains a sequence of qdtext or quoted-pair, which are defined in
+ RFC 3261 [RFC3261]. Note that this means that the NONCE attribute
+ will not contain actual quote characters. See RFC 2617 [RFC2617],
+ Section 4.3, for guidance on selection of nonce values in a server.
+
+ It MUST be less than 128 characters (which can be as long as 763
+ bytes).
+
+15.9. UNKNOWN-ATTRIBUTES
+
+ The UNKNOWN-ATTRIBUTES attribute is present only in an error response
+ when the response code in the ERROR-CODE attribute is 420.
+
+ The attribute contains a list of 16-bit values, each of which
+ represents an attribute type that was not understood by the server.
+
+ 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
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Attribute 1 Type | Attribute 2 Type |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Attribute 3 Type | Attribute 4 Type ...
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+
+ Figure 8: Format of UNKNOWN-ATTRIBUTES Attribute
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ Note: In [RFC3489], this field was padded to 32 by duplicating the
+ last attribute. In this version of the specification, the normal
+ padding rules for attributes are used instead.
+
+15.10. SOFTWARE
+
+ The SOFTWARE attribute contains a textual description of the software
+ being used by the agent sending the message. It is used by clients
+ and servers. Its value SHOULD include manufacturer and version
+ number. The attribute has no impact on operation of the protocol,
+ and serves only as a tool for diagnostic and debugging purposes. The
+ value of SOFTWARE is variable length. It MUST be a UTF-8 [RFC3629]
+ encoded sequence of less than 128 characters (which can be as long as
+ 763 bytes).
+
+15.11. ALTERNATE-SERVER
+
+ The alternate server represents an alternate transport address
+ identifying a different STUN server that the STUN client should try.
+
+ It is encoded in the same way as MAPPED-ADDRESS, and thus refers to a
+ single server by IP address. The IP address family MUST be identical
+ to that of the source IP address of the request.
+
+16. Security Considerations
+
+16.1. Attacks against the Protocol
+
+16.1.1. Outside Attacks
+
+ An attacker can try to modify STUN messages in transit, in order to
+ cause a failure in STUN operation. These attacks are detected for
+ both requests and responses through the message-integrity mechanism,
+ using either a short-term or long-term credential. Of course, once
+ detected, the manipulated packets will be dropped, causing the STUN
+ transaction to effectively fail. This attack is possible only by an
+ on-path attacker.
+
+ An attacker that can observe, but not modify, STUN messages in-
+ transit (for example, an attacker present on a shared access medium,
+ such as Wi-Fi), can see a STUN request, and then immediately send a
+ STUN response, typically an error response, in order to disrupt STUN
+ processing. This attack is also prevented for messages that utilize
+ MESSAGE-INTEGRITY. However, some error responses, those related to
+ authentication in particular, cannot be protected by MESSAGE-
+ INTEGRITY. When STUN itself is run over a secure transport protocol
+ (e.g., TLS), these attacks are completely mitigated.
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ Depending on the STUN usage, these attacks may be of minimal
+ consequence and thus do not require message integrity to mitigate.
+ For example, when STUN is used to a basic STUN server to discover a
+ server reflexive candidate for usage with ICE, authentication and
+ message integrity are not required since these attacks are detected
+ during the connectivity check phase. The connectivity checks
+ themselves, however, require protection for proper operation of ICE
+ overall. As described in Section 14, STUN usages describe when
+ authentication and message integrity are needed.
+
+ Since STUN uses the HMAC of a shared secret for authentication and
+ integrity protection, it is subject to offline dictionary attacks.
+ When authentication is utilized, it SHOULD be with a strong password
+ that is not readily subject to offline dictionary attacks.
+ Protection of the channel itself, using TLS, mitigates these attacks.
+ However, STUN is most often run over UDP and in those cases, strong
+ passwords are the only way to protect against these attacks.
+
+16.1.2. Inside Attacks
+
+ A rogue client may try to launch a DoS attack against a server by
+ sending it a large number of STUN requests. Fortunately, STUN
+ requests can be processed statelessly by a server, making such
+ attacks hard to launch.
+
+ A rogue client may use a STUN server as a reflector, sending it
+ requests with a falsified source IP address and port. In such a
+ case, the response would be delivered to that source IP and port.
+ There is no amplification of the number of packets with this attack
+ (the STUN server sends one packet for each packet sent by the
+ client), though there is a small increase in the amount of data,
+ since STUN responses are typically larger than requests. This attack
+ is mitigated by ingress source address filtering.
+
+ Revealing the specific software version of the agent through the
+ SOFTWARE attribute might allow them to become more vulnerable to
+ attacks against software that is known to contain security holes.
+ Implementers SHOULD make usage of the SOFTWARE attribute a
+ configurable option.
+
+16.2. Attacks Affecting the Usage
+
+ This section lists attacks that might be launched against a usage of
+ STUN. Each STUN usage must consider whether these attacks are
+ applicable to it, and if so, discuss counter-measures.
+
+ Most of the attacks in this section revolve around an attacker
+ modifying the reflexive address learned by a STUN client through a
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ Binding request/response transaction. Since the usage of the
+ reflexive address is a function of the usage, the applicability and
+ remediation of these attacks are usage-specific. In common
+ situations, modification of the reflexive address by an on-path
+ attacker is easy to do. Consider, for example, the common situation
+ where STUN is run directly over UDP. In this case, an on-path
+ attacker can modify the source IP address of the Binding request
+ before it arrives at the STUN server. The STUN server will then
+ return this IP address in the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute to the
+ client, and send the response back to that (falsified) IP address and
+ port. If the attacker can also intercept this response, it can
+ direct it back towards the client. Protecting against this attack by
+ using a message-integrity check is impossible, since a message-
+ integrity value cannot cover the source IP address, since the
+ intervening NAT must be able to modify this value. Instead, one
+ solution to preventing the attacks listed below is for the client to
+ verify the reflexive address learned, as is done in ICE [MMUSIC-ICE].
+ Other usages may use other means to prevent these attacks.
+
+16.2.1. Attack I: Distributed DoS (DDoS) against a Target
+
+ In this attack, the attacker provides one or more clients with the
+ same faked reflexive address that points to the intended target.
+ This will trick the STUN clients into thinking that their reflexive
+ addresses are equal to that of the target. If the clients hand out
+ that reflexive address in order to receive traffic on it (for
+ example, in SIP messages), the traffic will instead be sent to the
+ target. This attack can provide substantial amplification,
+ especially when used with clients that are using STUN to enable
+ multimedia applications. However, it can only be launched against
+ targets for which packets from the STUN server to the target pass
+ through the attacker, limiting the cases in which it is possible.
+
+16.2.2. Attack II: Silencing a Client
+
+ In this attack, the attacker provides a STUN client with a faked
+ reflexive address. The reflexive address it provides is a transport
+ address that routes to nowhere. As a result, the client won't
+ receive any of the packets it expects to receive when it hands out
+ the reflexive address. This exploitation is not very interesting for
+ the attacker. It impacts a single client, which is frequently not
+ the desired target. Moreover, any attacker that can mount the attack
+ could also deny service to the client by other means, such as
+ preventing the client from receiving any response from the STUN
+ server, or even a DHCP server. As with the attack in Section 16.2.1,
+ this attack is only possible when the attacker is on path for packets
+ sent from the STUN server towards this unused IP address.
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+16.2.3. Attack III: Assuming the Identity of a Client
+
+ This attack is similar to attack II. However, the faked reflexive
+ address points to the attacker itself. This allows the attacker to
+ receive traffic that was destined for the client.
+
+16.2.4. Attack IV: Eavesdropping
+
+ In this attack, the attacker forces the client to use a reflexive
+ address that routes to itself. It then forwards any packets it
+ receives to the client. This attack would allow the attacker to
+ observe all packets sent to the client. However, in order to launch
+ the attack, the attacker must have already been able to observe
+ packets from the client to the STUN server. In most cases (such as
+ when the attack is launched from an access network), this means that
+ the attacker could already observe packets sent to the client. This
+ attack is, as a result, only useful for observing traffic by
+ attackers on the path from the client to the STUN server, but not
+ generally on the path of packets being routed towards the client.
+
+16.3. Hash Agility Plan
+
+ This specification uses HMAC-SHA-1 for computation of the message
+ integrity. If, at a later time, HMAC-SHA-1 is found to be
+ compromised, the following is the remedy that will be applied.
+
+ We will define a STUN extension that introduces a new message-
+ integrity attribute, computed using a new hash. Clients would be
+ required to include both the new and old message-integrity attributes
+ in their requests or indications. A new server will utilize the new
+ message-integrity attribute, and an old one, the old. After a
+ transition period where mixed implementations are in deployment, the
+ old message-integrity attribute will be deprecated by another
+ specification, and clients will cease including it in requests.
+
+ It is also important to note that the HMAC is done using a key that
+ is itself computed using an MD5 of the user's password. The choice
+ of the MD5 hash was made because of the existence of legacy databases
+ that store passwords in that form. If future work finds that an HMAC
+ of an MD5 input is not secure, and a different hash is needed, it can
+ also be changed using this plan. However, this would require
+ administrators to repopulate their databases.
+
+17. IAB Considerations
+
+ The IAB has studied the problem of Unilateral Self-Address Fixing
+ (UNSAF), which is the general process by which a client attempts to
+ determine its address in another realm on the other side of a NAT
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ through a collaborative protocol reflection mechanism (RFC3424
+ [RFC3424]). STUN can be used to perform this function using a
+ Binding request/response transaction if one agent is behind a NAT and
+ the other is on the public side of the NAT.
+
+ The IAB has mandated that protocols developed for this purpose
+ document a specific set of considerations. Because some STUN usages
+ provide UNSAF functions (such as ICE [MMUSIC-ICE] ), and others do
+ not (such as SIP Outbound [SIP-OUTBOUND]), answers to these
+ considerations need to be addressed by the usages themselves.
+
+18. IANA Considerations
+
+ IANA has created three new registries: a "STUN Methods Registry", a
+ "STUN Attributes Registry", and a "STUN Error Codes Registry". IANA
+ has also changed the name of the assigned IANA port for STUN from
+ "nat-stun-port" to "stun".
+
+18.1. STUN Methods Registry
+
+ A STUN method is a hex number in the range 0x000 - 0xFFF. The
+ encoding of STUN method into a STUN message is described in
+ Section 6.
+
+ The initial STUN methods are:
+
+ 0x000: (Reserved)
+ 0x001: Binding
+ 0x002: (Reserved; was SharedSecret)
+
+ STUN methods in the range 0x000 - 0x7FF are assigned by IETF Review
+ [RFC5226]. STUN methods in the range 0x800 - 0xFFF are assigned by
+ Designated Expert [RFC5226]. The responsibility of the expert is to
+ verify that the selected codepoint(s) are not in use and that the
+ request is not for an abnormally large number of codepoints.
+ Technical review of the extension itself is outside the scope of the
+ designated expert responsibility.
+
+18.2. STUN Attribute Registry
+
+ A STUN Attribute type is a hex number in the range 0x0000 - 0xFFFF.
+ STUN attribute types in the range 0x0000 - 0x7FFF are considered
+ comprehension-required; STUN attribute types in the range 0x8000 -
+ 0xFFFF are considered comprehension-optional. A STUN agent handles
+ unknown comprehension-required and comprehension-optional attributes
+ differently.
+
+ The initial STUN Attributes types are:
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ Comprehension-required range (0x0000-0x7FFF):
+ 0x0000: (Reserved)
+ 0x0001: MAPPED-ADDRESS
+ 0x0002: (Reserved; was RESPONSE-ADDRESS)
+ 0x0003: (Reserved; was CHANGE-ADDRESS)
+ 0x0004: (Reserved; was SOURCE-ADDRESS)
+ 0x0005: (Reserved; was CHANGED-ADDRESS)
+ 0x0006: USERNAME
+ 0x0007: (Reserved; was PASSWORD)
+ 0x0008: MESSAGE-INTEGRITY
+ 0x0009: ERROR-CODE
+ 0x000A: UNKNOWN-ATTRIBUTES
+ 0x000B: (Reserved; was REFLECTED-FROM)
+ 0x0014: REALM
+ 0x0015: NONCE
+ 0x0020: XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS
+
+ Comprehension-optional range (0x8000-0xFFFF)
+ 0x8022: SOFTWARE
+ 0x8023: ALTERNATE-SERVER
+ 0x8028: FINGERPRINT
+
+ STUN Attribute types in the first half of the comprehension-required
+ range (0x0000 - 0x3FFF) and in the first half of the comprehension-
+ optional range (0x8000 - 0xBFFF) are assigned by IETF Review
+ [RFC5226]. STUN Attribute types in the second half of the
+ comprehension-required range (0x4000 - 0x7FFF) and in the second half
+ of the comprehension-optional range (0xC000 - 0xFFFF) are assigned by
+ Designated Expert [RFC5226]. The responsibility of the expert is to
+ verify that the selected codepoint(s) are not in use, and that the
+ request is not for an abnormally large number of codepoints.
+ Technical review of the extension itself is outside the scope of the
+ designated expert responsibility.
+
+18.3. STUN Error Code Registry
+
+ A STUN error code is a number in the range 0 - 699. STUN error codes
+ are accompanied by a textual reason phrase in UTF-8 [RFC3629] that is
+ intended only for human consumption and can be anything appropriate;
+ this document proposes only suggested values.
+
+ STUN error codes are consistent in codepoint assignments and
+ semantics with SIP [RFC3261] and HTTP [RFC2616].
+
+ The initial values in this registry are given in Section 15.6.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ New STUN error codes are assigned based on IETF Review [RFC5226].
+ The specification must carefully consider how clients that do not
+ understand this error code will process it before granting the
+ request. See the rules in Section 7.3.4.
+
+18.4. STUN UDP and TCP Port Numbers
+
+ IANA has previously assigned port 3478 for STUN. This port appears
+ in the IANA registry under the moniker "nat-stun-port". In order to
+ align the DNS SRV procedures with the registered protocol service,
+ IANA is requested to change the name of protocol assigned to port
+ 3478 from "nat-stun-port" to "stun", and the textual name from
+ "Simple Traversal of UDP Through NAT (STUN)" to "Session Traversal
+ Utilities for NAT", so that the IANA port registry would read:
+
+ stun 3478/tcp Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) port
+ stun 3478/udp Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) port
+
+ In addition, IANA has assigned port number 5349 for the "stuns"
+ service, defined over TCP and UDP. The UDP port is not currently
+ defined; however, it is reserved for future use.
+
+19. Changes since RFC 3489
+
+ This specification obsoletes RFC 3489 [RFC3489]. This specification
+ differs from RFC 3489 in the following ways:
+
+ o Removed the notion that STUN is a complete NAT traversal solution.
+ STUN is now a tool that can be used to produce a NAT traversal
+ solution. As a consequence, changed the name of the protocol to
+ Session Traversal Utilities for NAT.
+
+ o Introduced the concept of STUN usages, and described what a usage
+ of STUN must document.
+
+ o Removed the usage of STUN for NAT type detection and binding
+ lifetime discovery. These techniques have proven overly brittle
+ due to wider variations in the types of NAT devices than described
+ in this document. Removed the RESPONSE-ADDRESS, CHANGED-ADDRESS,
+ CHANGE-REQUEST, SOURCE-ADDRESS, and REFLECTED-FROM attributes.
+
+ o Added a fixed 32-bit magic cookie and reduced length of
+ transaction ID by 32 bits. The magic cookie begins at the same
+ offset as the original transaction ID.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ o Added the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute, which is included in
+ Binding responses if the magic cookie is present in the request.
+ Otherwise, the RFC 3489 behavior is retained (that is, Binding
+ response includes MAPPED-ADDRESS). See discussion in XOR-MAPPED-
+ ADDRESS regarding this change.
+
+ o Introduced formal structure into the message type header field,
+ with an explicit pair of bits for indication of request, response,
+ error response, or indication. Consequently, the message type
+ field is split into the class (one of the previous four) and
+ method.
+
+ o Explicitly point out that the most significant 2 bits of STUN are
+ 0b00, allowing easy differentiation with RTP packets when used
+ with ICE.
+
+ o Added the FINGERPRINT attribute to provide a method of definitely
+ detecting the difference between STUN and another protocol when
+ the two protocols are multiplexed together.
+
+ o Added support for IPv6. Made it clear that an IPv4 client could
+ get a v6 mapped address, and vice versa.
+
+ o Added long-term-credential-based authentication.
+
+ o Added the SOFTWARE, REALM, NONCE, and ALTERNATE-SERVER attributes.
+
+ o Removed the SharedSecret method, and thus the PASSWORD attribute.
+ This method was almost never implemented and is not needed with
+ current usages.
+
+ o Removed recommendation to continue listening for STUN responses
+ for 10 seconds in an attempt to recognize an attack.
+
+ o Changed transaction timers to be more TCP friendly.
+
+ o Removed the STUN example that centered around the separation of
+ the control and media planes. Instead, provided more information
+ on using STUN with protocols.
+
+ o Defined a generic padding mechanism that changes the
+ interpretation of the length attribute. This would, in theory,
+ break backwards compatibility. However, the mechanism in RFC 3489
+ never worked for the few attributes that weren't aligned naturally
+ on 32-bit boundaries.
+
+ o REALM, SERVER, reason phrases, and NONCE limited to 127
+ characters. USERNAME to 513 bytes.
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ o Changed the DNS SRV procedures for TCP and TLS. UDP remains the
+ same as before.
+
+20. Contributors
+
+ Christian Huitema and Joel Weinberger were original co-authors of RFC
+ 3489.
+
+21. Acknowledgements
+
+ The authors would like to thank Cedric Aoun, Pete Cordell, Cullen
+ Jennings, Bob Penfield, Xavier Marjou, Magnus Westerlund, Miguel
+ Garcia, Bruce Lowekamp, and Chris Sullivan for their comments, and
+ Baruch Sterman and Alan Hawrylyshen for initial implementations.
+ Thanks for Leslie Daigle, Allison Mankin, Eric Rescorla, and Henning
+ Schulzrinne for IESG and IAB input on this work.
+
+22. References
+
+22.1. Normative References
+
+ [ITU.V42.2002] International Telecommunications Union, "Error-
+ correcting Procedures for DCEs Using Asynchronous-
+ to-Synchronous Conversion", ITU-T Recommendation
+ V.42, March 2002.
+
+ [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+ September 1981.
+
+ [RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+ Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
+ October 1989.
+
+ [RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm",
+ RFC 1321, April 1992.
+
+ [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC:
+ Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication",
+ RFC 2104, February 1997.
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol,
+ Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460,
+ December 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ [RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J.,
+ Lawrence, S., Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L.
+ Stewart, "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest
+ Access Authentication", RFC 2617, June 1999.
+
+ [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS
+ RR for specifying the location of services (DNS
+ SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000.
+
+ [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
+
+ [RFC2988] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's
+ Retransmission Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000.
+
+ [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+ 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
+
+ [RFC4013] Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep Profile for
+ User Names and Passwords", RFC 4013, February 2005.
+
+22.2. Informative References
+
+ [BEHAVE-NAT] MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior
+ Discovery Using STUN", Work in Progress, July 2008.
+
+ [BEHAVE-TURN] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., and P. Matthews,
+ "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay
+ Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT
+ (STUN)", Work in Progress, July 2008.
+
+ [KARN87] Karn, P. and C. Partridge, "Improving Round-Trip
+ Time Estimates in Reliable Transport Protocols",
+ SIGCOMM 1987, August 1987.
+
+ [MMUSIC-ICE] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity
+ Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address
+ Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer
+ Protocols", Work in Progress, October 2007.
+
+ [MMUSIC-ICE-TCP] Rosenberg, J., "TCP Candidates with Interactive
+ Connectivity Establishment (ICE)", Work
+ in Progress, July 2008.
+
+ [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
+ Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee,
+ "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
+ RFC 2616, June 1999.
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+ [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G.,
+ Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley,
+ M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation
+ Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
+
+ [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer
+ Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
+ RFC 3264, June 2002.
+
+ [RFC3424] Daigle, L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for
+ UNilateral Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across
+ Network Address Translation", RFC 3424,
+ November 2002.
+
+ [RFC3489] Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., and R.
+ Mahy, "STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram
+ Protocol (UDP) Through Network Address Translators
+ (NATs)", RFC 3489, March 2003.
+
+ [RFC4107] Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for
+ Cryptographic Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107,
+ June 2005.
+
+ [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
+ Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
+ BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
+
+ [SIP-OUTBOUND] Jennings, C. and R. Mahy, "Managing Client
+ Initiated Connections in the Session Initiation
+ Protocol (SIP)", Work in Progress, June 2008.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+Appendix A. C Snippet to Determine STUN Message Types
+
+ Given a 16-bit STUN message type value in host byte order in msg_type
+ parameter, below are C macros to determine the STUN message types:
+
+ #define IS_REQUEST(msg_type) (((msg_type) & 0x0110) == 0x0000)
+ #define IS_INDICATION(msg_type) (((msg_type) & 0x0110) == 0x0010)
+ #define IS_SUCCESS_RESP(msg_type) (((msg_type) & 0x0110) == 0x0100)
+ #define IS_ERR_RESP(msg_type) (((msg_type) & 0x0110) == 0x0110)
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Jonathan Rosenberg
+ Cisco
+ Edison, NJ
+ US
+
+ EMail: jdrosen@cisco.com
+ URI: http://www.jdrosen.net
+
+
+ Rohan Mahy
+ Unaffiliated
+
+ EMail: rohan@ekabal.com
+
+
+ Philip Matthews
+ Unaffiliated
+
+ EMail: philip_matthews@magma.ca
+
+
+ Dan Wing
+ Cisco
+ 771 Alder Drive
+ San Jose, CA 95035
+ US
+
+ EMail: dwing@cisco.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
+
+RFC 5389 STUN October 2008
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
+
+ This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+ contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
+ retain all their rights.
+
+ This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+ "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+ OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
+ THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
+ OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
+ THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+ WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+ The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+ Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+ pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+ this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+ might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+ made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
+ on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+ found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+ Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+ assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+ attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+ such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+ specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+ The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+ copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+ rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+ this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
+ ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rosenberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
+
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2024-11-01 12:23:24 +0000