| Rfc | 5508 |
|---|
| Title | NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP |
|---|
| Author | P. Srisuresh, B. Ford, S.
Sivakumar, S. Guha |
|---|
| Date | April 2009 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Updated by | RFC7857 |
|---|
| Also | BCP0148 |
|---|
| Status: | BEST CURRENT PRACTICE |
|---|
|
Network Working Group P. Srisuresh
Request for Comments: 5508 Kazeon Systems
BCP: 148 B. Ford
Category: Best Current Practice MPI-SWS
S. Sivakumar
Cisco Systems
S. Guha
Cornell U.
April 2009
NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Abstract
This document specifies the behavioral properties required of the
Network Address Translator (NAT) devices in conjunction with the
Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP). The objective of this memo
is to make NAT devices more predictable and compatible with diverse
application protocols that traverse the devices. Companion documents
provide behavioral recommendations specific to TCP, UDP, and other
protocols.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Scope ..........................................3
2. Terminology .....................................................4
3. ICMP Query Handling .............................................6
3.1. ICMP Query Mapping .........................................6
3.2. ICMP Query Session Timeouts ................................7
4. ICMP Error Forwarding ...........................................8
4.1. ICMP Error Payload Validation ..............................8
4.2. ICMP Error Packet Translation .............................10
4.2.1. ICMP Error Packet Received from the External Realm .11
4.2.2. ICMP Error Packet Received from the Private Realm ..13
4.3. NAT Sessions Pertaining to ICMP Error Payload .............15
5. Hairpinning Support for ICMP Packets ...........................16
6. Rejection of Outbound Flows Disallowed by NAT ..................17
7. Conformance to RFC 1812 ........................................17
7.1. IP Packet Fragmentation ...................................19
7.1.1. Generating "Packet Too Big" ICMP Error Message ....19
7.1.2. Forwarding "Packet Too Big" ICMP Error Message ....20
7.2. Time Exceeded Message .....................................20
7.3. Source Route Options ......................................20
7.4. Address Mask Request/Reply Messages .......................20
7.5. Parameter Problem Message .................................21
7.6. Router Advertisement and Solicitations ....................21
7.7. DS Field Usage ............................................21
8. Non-QueryError ICMP Messages ...................................22
9. Summary of Requirements ........................................22
10. Security Considerations .......................................25
11. Acknowledgements ..............................................26
12. References ....................................................27
12.1. Normative References .....................................27
12.2. Informative References ...................................27
1. Introduction and Scope
As pointed out in RFC 3424 [UNSAF], NAT implementations vary widely
in terms of how they handle different traffic. The purpose of this
document is to define a specific set of requirements for NAT behavior
with regard to ICMP messages. The objective is to reduce the
unpredictability and brittleness the NAT devices (NATs) introduce.
This document is an adjunct to [BEH-UDP], [BEH-TCP], and other
protocol-specific BEHAVE document(s) in the future that define
requirements for NATs when handling protocol-specific traffic.
The requirements of this specification apply to traditional NATs as
described in [NAT-TRAD]. A traditional NAT has two variations,
namely Basic NAT and Network Address Port Translator (NAPT). Of
these, NAPT is by far the most commonly deployed NAT device. NAPT
allows multiple private hosts to share a single public IP address
simultaneously.
This document only covers the ICMP aspects of NAT traversal,
specifically the traversal of ICMP Query messages and ICMP Error
messages. Traditional NAT inherently mandates firewall-like
filtering behavior [BEH-UDP]. However, firewall functionality in
general or any other middlebox functionality is out of the scope of
this document.
In some cases, ICMP message traversal behavior on a NAT device may be
overridden by local administrative policies. Some administrators may
choose to entirely prohibit forwarding of ICMP Error messages across
a NAT device. Some others may choose to prohibit ICMP-Query-based
applications across a NAT device. These are local policies and not
within the scope of this document. For this reason, some of the ICMP
requirements listed in the document are preceded with a constraint of
local policy permitting.
This document focuses strictly on the behavior of the NAT device, and
not on the behavior of applications that traverse NATs. Application
designers may refer to [BEH-APP] and [ICE] for recommendations and
guidelines on how to make applications work robustly over NATs that
follow the requirements specified here and the adjunct protocol-
specific BEHAVE documents.
Per [RFC1812], ICMP is a control protocol that is considered to be an
integral part of IP, although it is architecturally layered upon IP
-- it uses IP to carry its data end-to-end. As such, many of the
ICMP behavioral requirements discussed in this document apply to all
IP protocols.
In case a requirement in this document conflicts with protocol-
specific BEHAVE requirement(s), protocol-specific BEHAVE documents
will take precedence. The authors are not aware of any conflicts
between this and any other IETF document at the time of this writing.
Section 2 describes the terminology used throughout the document.
Section 3 is focused on requirements concerning ICMP-Query-based
applications traversing a NAT device. Sections 4 and 5 describe
requirements concerning ICMP Error messages traversing a NAT device.
Sections 6 describes requirements concerning ICMP Error messages
generated by a NAT device. Section 7 reviews RFC 1812 conformance
requirements and applicability to NATs when handling ICMP messages.
Section 8 reviews a requirement for ICMP messages that are neither
ICMP Query nor ICMP Error kind. Section 9 summarizes all the
requirements in one place. Section 10 has a discussion on security
considerations.
2. Terminology
Definitions for the majority of the NAT terms used throughout the
document may be found in [NAT-TERM] and [BEH-UDP].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The term "Realm" is adapted from [NAT-TERM] and is defined as
follows. "Realm" is often interchanged for "network domain" or
simply "network" throughout the document.
Address realm or Realm - An address realm is a network domain in
which the network addresses are uniquely assigned to entities such
that datagrams can be routed to them. Routing protocols used within
the network domain are responsible for finding routes to entities
given their network addresses. Note that this document is limited to
describing NAT in the IPv4 environment and does not address the use
of NAT in other types of environments (e.g., the IPV6 environment).
The term "NAT Session" is adapted from [NAT-MIB] and is defined as
follows:
NAT Session - A NAT session is an association between a session as
seen in the private realm and a session as seen in the public realm,
by virtue of NAT translation. If a session in the private realm were
to be represented as (PrivateSrcAddr, PrivateDstAddr,
TransportProtocol, PrivateSrcPort, PrivateDstPort) and the same
session in the public realm were to be represented as (PublicSrcAddr,
PublicDstAddr, TransportProtocol, PublicSrcPort, PublicDstPort), the
NAT session would provide the translation glue between the two
session representations. NAT sessions in the document are restricted
to sessions based on TCP, UDP, and ICMP. In the future, NAT sessions
may be extended to be based on other transport protocols such as
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), UDP-lite, and Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP).
ICMP Message Classification - Section 3.2.2 of [RFC1122] and Section
4.3.1 of [RFC1812] broadly group ICMP messages into two main
categories, namely "ICMP Query" messages and "ICMP Error" messages.
All ICMP Error messages listed in RFC 1122 and RFC 1812 contain part
of the Internet datagram that elicited the ICMP error. All the ICMP
Query messages listed in RFC 1122 and RFC 1812 contain an
"Identifier" field, which is referred to in this document as the
"Query Identifier". There are however ICMP messages that do not fall
into either of these two categories. We refer to them as "Non-
QueryError ICMP Messages". All three ICMP message classes are
described as follows:
o ICMP Query Messages - ICMP Query messages are characterized by an
Identifier field in the ICMP header. The Identifier field used by
the ICMP Query messages is also referred to as "Query Identifier"
or "Query Id", for short throughout the document. A Query Id is
used by Query senders and responders as the equivalent of a TCP/UDP
port to identify an ICMP Query session. ICMP Query messages
include ICMP messages defined after RFC 1122 or RFC 1812 (for
example, Domain Name Request/Reply ICMP messages defined in RFC
1788), as they include request/response pairs and contain an
"Identifier" field.
o ICMP Error Messages - ICMP Error messages provide signaling for IP.
All ICMP Error messages are characterized by the fact that they
embed the original datagram that triggered the ICMP Error message.
The original datagram embedded within the ICMP Error payload is
also referred to as the "Embedded packet" throughout the document.
Unlike ICMP Query messages, ICMP Error messages do not have a Query
Id in the ICMP header.
o Non-QueryError ICMP Messages - ICMP messages that do not fall under
either of the above two classes are referred to as "Non-QueryError
ICMP Messages" throughout the document. For example, Router
Discovery ICMP messages [RFC1256] are "request/response" type ICMP
messages. However, they are not characterized as ICMP Query
messages in this document as they do not have an "Identifier" field
within the messages. Likewise, there are other ICMP messages
defined in [RFC4065] that do not fall in either of the ICMP Query
or ICMP Error message categories, but will be referred to as Non-
QueryError ICMP messages.
The reason for categorizing ICMP messages for NAT behavioral
properties is that each category has different characteristics used
for mapping (i.e., the Query Id and the Embedded datagram), which
leaves the Non-QueryError ICMP messages in a separate, distinctive
group.
3. ICMP Query Handling
This section lists the behavioral requirements for a NAT device when
processing ICMP Query packets. The following subsections discuss
requirements specific to ICMP Query handling in detail.
3.1. ICMP Query Mapping
Unless explicitly overridden by local policy, a NAT device MUST
permit ICMP Queries and their associated responses, when the Query is
initiated from a private host to the external hosts. ICMP Query
mapping by NAT devices is necessary for current ICMP-Query-based
applications to work. This entails a NAT device to transparently
forward ICMP Query packets initiated from the nodes behind NAT, and
the responses to these Query packets in the opposite direction. As
specified in [NAT-TRAD], this requires translating the IP header. A
NAPT device further translates the ICMP Query Id and the associated
checksum in the ICMP header prior to forwarding.
NAT mapping of ICMP Query Identifiers SHOULD be external-host
independent. Say, an internal host A sent an ICMP Query out to an
external host B using Query Id X. And, say, the NAT assigned this an
external mapping of Query Id X' on the NAT's public address. If host
A reused the Query Id X to send ICMP Queries to the same or different
external host, the NAT device SHOULD reuse the same Query Id mapping
(i.e., map the private host's Query Id X to Query Id X' on NAT's
public IP address) instead of assigning a different mapping. This is
similar to the "endpoint independent mapping" requirement specified
in the TCP and UDP requirement documents [BEH-UDP], [BEH-TCP].
Below is justification for making the endpoint-independent mapping
for ICMP Query Id a SHOULD [RFC2119] requirement. ICMP Ping
[RFC1470] and ICMP traceroute [MS-TRCRT] are two most commonly known
legacy applications built on top of ICMP Query messages. Neither of
these applications require the ICMP Query Id to be retained across
different sessions with external hosts. But, that may not be the
case with future applications. In the future, when an end host
application reuses the same Query Identifier in sessions with
different target hosts, the end host application might require that
the endpoint identity (i.e., the tuple of IP address and Query
Identifier) appears the same across all its target hosts. In an IP
network without NAT requirements, such a requirement will be valid.
In a world with NAT devices, the above assumption will be valid when
NAT devices enforce endpoint mapping that is external-host
independent. Given the dichotomy between legacy applications not
requiring endpoint-independent mapping and future applications that
might require it, the requirement level is kept at SHOULD [RFC2119].
REQ-1: Unless explicitly overridden by local policy, a NAT device
MUST permit ICMP Queries and their associated responses, when
the Query is initiated from a private host to the external
hosts.
a) NAT mapping of ICMP Query Identifiers SHOULD be external-
host independent.
3.2. ICMP Query Session Timeouts
NATs maintain a mapping timeout for the ICMP Queries that traverse
them. The mapping timeout is the time a mapping will stay active
without packets traversing the NAT. There is great variation in the
values used by different NATs. The ICMP Query session timeout
requirement is necessary for current ICMP Query applications to work.
Query response times can vary. ICMP-Query-based applications are
primarily request/response driven.
Ideally, the timeout should be set to Maximum Round Trip Time
(Maximum RTT). For the purposes of constraining the maximum RTT, the
Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL), defined in [RFC793], could be
considered a guideline to set packet lifetime. Per [RFC793], MSL is
the maximum amount of time a TCP segment can exist in a network
before being delivered to the intended recipient. This is the
maximum duration an IP packet can be assumed to take to reach the
intended destination node before declaring that the packet will no
longer be delivered. For an application initiating an ICMP Query
message and waiting for a response for the Query, the Maximum RTT
could in practice be constrained to be the sum total of MSL for the
Query message and MSL for the response message. In other words,
Maximum RTT could be constrained to no more than 2x MSL. The
recommended value for MSL in [RFC793] is 120 seconds, even though
several implementations set this to 60 seconds or 30 seconds. When
MSL is 120 seconds, the Maximum RTT (2x MSL) would be 240 seconds.
In practice, ICMP Ping [RFC1470] and ICMP traceroute [MS-TRCRT], the
two most commonly known legacy applications built on top of ICMP
Query messages, take less than 10 seconds to complete a round trip
when the target node is operational on the network.
Setting the ICMP NAT session timeout to a very large duration (say,
240 seconds) could potentially tie up precious NAT resources such as
Query mappings and NAT Sessions for the whole duration. On the other
hand, setting the timeout very low can result in premature freeing of
NAT resources and applications failing to complete gracefully. The
ICMP Query session timeout needs to be a balance between the two
extremes. A 60-second timeout is a balance between the two extremes.
An ICMP Query session timer MUST NOT expire in less than 60 seconds.
It is RECOMMENDED that the ICMP Query session timer be made
configurable.
REQ-2: An ICMP Query session timer MUST NOT expire in less than 60
seconds.
a) It is RECOMMENDED that the ICMP Query session timer be made
configurable.
4. ICMP Error Forwarding
Many applications make use of ICMP Error messages from end hosts and
intermediate devices to shorten application timeouts. Some
applications will not operate correctly without the receipt of ICMP
Error messages. The following sub-sections discuss the requirements
a NAT device must conform to in order to ensure reliable forwarding.
4.1. ICMP Error Payload Validation
An ICMP Error message checksum covers the entire ICMP message,
including the payload. When an ICMP Error packet is received, if the
ICMP checksum fails to validate, the NAT SHOULD silently drop the
ICMP Error packet. This is because NAT uses the embedded IP and
transport headers for forwarding and translating the ICMP Error
message (described in Section 4.2). When the ICMP checksum is
invalid, the embedded IP and transport headers, which are covered by
the ICMP checksum, are also suspect.
[RFC1812] and [RFC1122] require a router or an end host that receives
an IP packet with an invalid IP header checksum to silently drop the
IP packet. As such, end hosts and routers do not generate an ICMP
Error message in response to IP packets with invalid IP header
checksums. For this reason, if the IP checksum of the embedded
packet within an ICMP Error message fails to validate, the NAT SHOULD
silently drop the Error packet.
When the IP packet embedded within the ICMP Error message includes IP
options, the NAT device must not assume that the transport header of
the embedded packet is at a fixed offset (as would be the case when
there are no IP options associated with the packet) from the start of
the embedded packet. Specifically, if the embedded packet includes
IP options, the NAT device MUST traverse past the IP options to
locate the start of transport header for the embedded packet.
It is possible to compute the transport checksum of the embedded
packet within an ICMP Error message when the ICMP Error message
contains the entire transport segment. However, ICMP Error messages
do not contain the entire transport segment in many cases. This is
because [ICMP] stipulates that an ICMP Error message should embed an
IP header and only a minimum of 64 bits of the IP payload. Even
though Section 4.3.2.3 of [RFC1812] recommends an ICMP Error
originator include as much of the original packet as possible in the
payload, the length of the resulting ICMP datagram cannot exceed 576
bytes. ICMP Error originators truncate IP packets that do not fit
within the stipulations.
A NAT device SHOULD NOT validate the transport checksum of the
embedded packet within an ICMP Error message, even when it is
possible to do so. This is because a NAT dropping an ICMP Error
message due to an invalid transport checksum will make it harder for
end hosts to receive error reporting for certain types of corruption.
End-to-end validation of ICMP Error messages is best left to end
hosts. Many newer revision end host TCP/IP stacks implement the
improvements in [TCP-SOFT] and do not accept ICMP Error messages with
a mismatched IP or TCP checksum in the embedded packet, if the
embedded datagram contains a full IP packet and the TCP checksum can
be calculated.
In the case that the ICMP Error payload includes ICMP extensions
[ICMP-EXT], the NAT device MUST exclude the optional zero-padding and
the ICMP extensions when evaluating transport checksum for the
embedded packet. Readers are urged to refer to [ICMP-EXT] for
information on identifying the presence of ICMP extensions in an ICMP
message.
REQ-3: When an ICMP Error packet is received, if the ICMP checksum
fails to validate, the NAT SHOULD silently drop the ICMP Error
packet. If the ICMP checksum is valid, do the following:
a) If the IP checksum of the embedded packet fails to
validate, the NAT SHOULD silently drop the Error packet;
and
b) If the embedded packet includes IP options, the NAT device
MUST traverse past the IP options to locate the start of
the transport header for the embedded packet; and
c) The NAT device SHOULD NOT validate the transport checksum
of the embedded packet within an ICMP Error message, even
when it is possible to do so; and
d) If the ICMP Error payload contains ICMP extensions
[ICMP-EXT], the NAT device MUST exclude the optional zero-
padding and the ICMP extensions when evaluating transport
checksum for the embedded packet.
4.2. ICMP Error Packet Translation
Section 4.3 of [NAT-TRAD] describes the fields of an ICMP Error
message that a NAT device translates. In this section, we describe
the requirements a NAT device must conform to while performing the
translations. Requirements identified in this section are necessary
for the current applications to work correctly.
Consider the following scenario in Figure 1. Say, NAT-xy is a NAT
device connecting hosts in private and external networks. Router-x
and Host-x are in the external network. Router-y and Host-y are in
the private network. The subnets in the external network are
routable from the private as well as the external domains. By
contrast, the subnets in the private network are only routable within
the private domain. When Host-y initiated a session to Host-x, let
us say that the NAT device mapped the endpoint on Host-y into Host-y'
in the external network. The following subsections describe the
processing of ICMP Error messages on the NAT device(NAT-xy) when the
NAT device receives an ICMP Error message in response to a packet
pertaining to this session.
Host-x
|
---------------+-------------------
|
+-------------+
| Router-x |
+-------------+
External Network |
--------------------+--------+-------------------
| ^
| | (Host-y', Host-x)
| |
+-------------+
| NAT-xy |
+-------------+
|
Private Network |
----------------+------------+----------------
|
+-------------+
| Router-y |
+-------------+
|
----------------+-------+--------
| ^
| | (Host-y, Host-x)
| |
Host-y
Figure 1. A Session from a Private Host Traversing a NAT Device
4.2.1. ICMP Error Packet Received from the External Realm
Say, a packet from Host-y to Host-x triggered an ICMP Error message
from one of Router-x or Host-x (both of which are in the external
domain). Such an ICMP Error packet will have one of Router-x or
Host-x as the source IP address and Host-y' as the destination IP
address as described in Figure 2 below.
Host-x
|
---------------+-------------------
|
+-------------+
| Router-x |
+-------------+
External Network |
--------------------+--------+-------------------
|
| | ICMP Error Packet to Host-y'
| v
+-------------+
| NAT-xy |
+-------------+
Private Network |
----------------+------------+----------------
|
+-------------+
| Router-y |
+-------------+
|
----------------+-------+--------
|
Host-y
Figure 2. ICMP Error Packet Received from External Network
When the NAT device receives the ICMP Error packet, the NAT device
uses the packet embedded within the ICMP Error message (i.e., the IP
packet from Host-y' to Host-x) to look up the NAT Session to which
the embedded packet belongs. If the NAT device does not have an
active mapping for the embedded packet, the NAT SHOULD silently drop
the ICMP Error packet. Otherwise, the NAT device MUST use the
matching NAT Session to translate the embedded packet; that is,
translate the source IP address of the embedded packet (e.g., Host-y'
-> Host-y) and transport headers.
The ICMP Error payload may contain ICMP extension objects [ICMP-EXT].
NATs are encouraged to support ICMP extension objects. At the time
of this writing, the authors are not aware of any standard ICMP
extension objects containing realm-specific information.
The NAT device MUST also use the matching NAT Session to translate
the destination IP address in the outer IP header. In the outer
header, the source IP address will remain unchanged because the
originator of the ICMP Error message (Host-x or Router-x) is in an
external domain and is routable from the private domain.
REQ-4: If a NAT device receives an ICMP Error packet from an external
realm, and the NAT device does not have an active mapping for
the embedded payload, the NAT SHOULD silently drop the ICMP
Error packet. If the NAT has active mapping for the embedded
payload, then the NAT MUST do the following prior to
forwarding the packet, unless explicitly overridden by local
policy:
a) Revert the IP and transport headers of the embedded IP
packet to their original form, using the matching mapping;
and
b) Leave the ICMP Error type and code unchanged; and
c) Modify the destination IP address of the outer IP header to
be the same as the source IP address of the embedded packet
after translation.
4.2.2. ICMP Error Packet Received from the Private Realm
Now, say, a packet from Host-x to Host-y triggered an ICMP Error
message from one of Router-y or Host-y (both of which are in the
private domain). Such an ICMP Error packet will have one of Router-y
or Host-y as the source IP address and Host-x as the destination IP
address as specified in Figure 3 below.
Host-x
|
---------------+-------------------
|
+-------------+
| Router-x |
+-------------+
External Network |
--------------------+--------+-------------------
|
|
+-------------+
| NAT-xy |
+-------------+
| ^
| | ICMP Error Packet to Host-x
Private Network |
----------------+------------+----------------
|
+-------------+
| Router-y |
+-------------+
|
----------------+-------+--------
|
Host-y
Figure 3. ICMP Error Packet Received from Private Network
When the NAT device receives the ICMP Error packet, the NAT device
MUST use the packet embedded within the ICMP Error message (i.e., the
IP packet from Host-x to Host-y) to look up the NAT Session to which
the embedded packet belongs. If the NAT device does not have an
active mapping for the embedded packet, the NAT SHOULD silently drop
the ICMP Error packet. Otherwise, the NAT device MUST use the
matching NAT Session to translate the embedded packet.
The ICMP Error payload may contain ICMP extension objects [ICMP-EXT].
NATs are encouraged to support ICMP extension objects. At the time
of this writing, the authors are not aware of any standard ICMP
extension objects containing realm-specific information.
In the outer header, the destination IP address will remain
unchanged, as the IP address for Host-x is already in the external
domain. If the ICMP Error message is generated by Host-y, the NAT
device must simply use the NAT Session to translate the source IP
address Host-y to Host-y'. If the ICMP Error message is originated
by the intermediate node Router-y, translation of the source IP
address varies depending on whether the Basic NAT or NAPT function
[NAT-TRAD] is enforced by the NAT device. A NAT device enforcing the
Basic NAT function has a pool of public IP addresses and enforces
address mapping (which is different from the endpoint mapping
enforced by NAPT) when a private node initiates an outgoing session
via the NAT device. So, if the NAT device has active mapping for the
IP address of the intermediate node Router-y, the NAT device MUST
translate the source IP address of the ICMP Error packet with the
public IP address in the mapping. In all other cases, the NAT device
MUST simply use its own IP address in the external domain to
translate the source IP address.
REQ-5: If a NAT device receives an ICMP Error packet from the private
realm, and the NAT does not have an active mapping for the
embedded payload, the NAT SHOULD silently drop the ICMP Error
packet. If the NAT has active mapping for the embedded
payload, then the NAT MUST do the following prior to
forwarding the packet, unless explicitly overridden by local
policy:
a) Revert the IP and transport headers of the embedded IP
packet to their original form, using the matching mapping;
and
b) Leave the ICMP Error type and code unchanged; and
c) If the NAT enforces Basic NAT function ([NAT-TRAD]), and
the NAT has active mapping for the IP address that sent the
ICMP Error, translate the source IP address of the ICMP
Error packet with the public IP address in the mapping. In
all other cases, translate the source IP address of the
ICMP Error packet with its own public IP address.
4.3. NAT Sessions Pertaining to ICMP Error Payload
While processing an ICMP Error packet pertaining to an ICMP Query or
Query response message, a NAT device MUST NOT refresh or delete the
NAT Session that pertains to the embedded payload within the ICMP
Error packet. This is in spite of the fact that the NAT device uses
the NAT Session to translate the embedded payload. This ensures that
the NAT Session will not be modified if someone is able to spoof ICMP
Error messages for the session. [ICMP-ATK] lists a number of
potential ICMP attacks that may be attempted by malicious users on
the network. This requirement is necessary for current applications
to work correctly.
REQ-6: While processing an ICMP Error packet pertaining to an ICMP
Query or Query response message, a NAT device MUST NOT refresh
or delete the NAT Session that pertains to the embedded
payload within the ICMP Error packet.
5. Hairpinning Support for ICMP Packets
[BEH-UDP] and [BEH-TCP] mandate support for hairpinning for UDP and
TCP sessions, respectively, on NAT devices. A NAT device needs to
support hairpinning for ICMP Query sessions as well. Specifically,
NAT devices enforcing Basic NAT [NAT-TRAD] MUST support the traversal
of hairpinned ICMP Query sessions. Say, for example, individual
private hosts register their NAT assigned external IP address with a
rendezvous server. Other hosts that wish to initiate ICMP Query
sessions to the registered hosts might do so using the public address
registered with the rendezvous server. For this reason, Basic NAT
devices are required to support the traversal of hairpinned ICMP
Query sessions. This requirement is necessary for current
applications to work correctly.
Packets belonging to any of the hairpinned sessions could, in turn,
trigger ICMP Error messages directed to the source of hairpinned IP
packets. Such hairpinned ICMP Error messages will traverse the NAT
devices en route. All NAT devices (i.e., Basic NAT as well as NAPT
devices) MUST support the traversal of hairpinned ICMP Error
messages. Specifically, the NAT device must translate not only the
embedded hairpinned packet, but also the outer IP header that is
hairpinned. This requirement is necessary for current applications
to work correctly.
A hairpinned ICMP Error message is received from a node in a private
network. As such, the ICMP Error processing requirement specified in
Req-5 is applicable in its entirety in processing the ICMP Error
message. In addition, the NAT device MUST translate the destination
IP address of the outer IP header to be same as the source IP address
of the embedded IP packet after the translation.
REQ-7: NAT devices enforcing Basic NAT [NAT-TRAD] MUST support the
traversal of hairpinned ICMP Query sessions. All NAT devices
(i.e., Basic NAT as well as NAPT devices) MUST support the
traversal of hairpinned ICMP Error messages:
a) When forwarding a hairpinned ICMP Error message, the NAT
device MUST translate the destination IP address of the
outer IP header to be same as the source IP address of the
embedded IP packet after the translation.
6. Rejection of Outbound Flows Disallowed by NAT
A NAT device typically permits all outbound sessions. However, a NAT
device may disallow some outbound sessions due to resource
constraints or administration considerations. For example, a NAT
device may not permit the first packet of a new outbound session if
the NAT device is out of resources (out of addresses or TCP/UDP
ports, or NAT Session resources) to set up a state for the session,
or, if the specific session is administratively restricted by the NAT
device.
When a NAT device is unable to establish a NAT Session for a new
transport-layer (TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc.) flow due to resource
constraints or administrative restrictions, the NAT device SHOULD
send an ICMP destination unreachable message, with a code of 13
(Communication administratively prohibited) to the sender, and drop
the original packet. This requirement is meant primarily for future
use. Current applications do not require this for them to work
correctly. The justification for using ICMP code 13 in the ICMP
Error message is as follows: Section 5.2.7.1 of [RFC1812] recommends
routers use ICMP code 13 (Communication administratively prohibited)
when they administratively filter packets. ICMP code 13 is a soft
error and is on par with other soft error codes generated in response
to transient events such as "network unreachable" (ICMP type=3,
code=0).
Some NAT designers opt to never reject an outbound flow. When a NAT
runs short of resources, they prefer to steal a resource from an
existing NAT Session rather than reject the outbound flow. Such a
design choice may appear conformant to REQ-8 below. However, the
design choice is in violation of the spirit of both REQ-8 and REQ-2.
Such a design choice is strongly discouraged.
REQ-8: When a NAT device is unable to establish a NAT Session for a
new transport-layer (TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc.) flow due to resource
constraints or administrative restrictions, the NAT device SHOULD
send an ICMP destination unreachable message, with a code of 13
(Communication administratively prohibited) to the sender, and drop
the original packet.
7. Conformance to RFC 1812
This document specifies NATs to have a behavior that is consistent
with the way routers handle ICMP messages, as specified in Section
4.3 of [RFC1812]. However, since the publication of [RFC1812], some
of its requirements are no longer best current practices. Thus, the
following requirements are derived from [RFC1812] and apply to NATs
compliant with this specification:
REQ-9: A NAT device MAY implement a policy control that prevents ICMP
messages being generated toward certain interface(s).
Implementation of such a policy control overrides the MUSTs
and SHOULDs in REQ-10.
REQ-10: Unless overridden by REQ-9's policy, a NAT device needs to
support ICMP messages as below, some conforming to Section
4.3 of [RFC1812] and some superseding the requirements of
Section 4.3 of [RFC1812]:
a. MUST support:
1. Destination Unreachable Message, as described in Section
7.1 of this document.
2. Time Exceeded Message, as described in Section 7.2 of
this document.
3. Echo Request/Reply Messages, as described in REQ-1.
b. MAY support:
1. Redirect Message, as described in Section 4.3.3.2 of
[RFC1812].
2. Timestamp and Timestamp Reply Messages, as described in
Section 4.3.3.8 of [RFC1812].
3. Source Route Options, as described in Section 7.3 of
this document.
4. Address Mask Request/Reply Message, as described in
Section 7.4 of this document.
5. Parameter Problem Message, as described in Section 7.5
of this document.
6. Router Advertisement and Solicitations, as described in
Section 7.6 of this document.
c. SHOULD NOT support:
1. Source Quench Message, as described in Section 4.3.3.3
of [RFC1812].
2. Information Request/reply, as described in Section
4.3.3.7 of [RFC1812].
In addition, a NAT device is RECOMMENDED to conform to the
following implementation considerations:
d. DS Field Usage, as described in Section 7.7 of this
document.
e. When Not to Send ICMP Errors, as described in Section
4.3.2.7 of [RFC1812].
f. Rate Limiting, as described in Section 4.3.2.8 of
[RFC1812].
7.1. IP Packet Fragmentation
Many networking applications (which include TCP- as well as UDP-based
applications) depend on ICMP Error messages from the network to
perform end-to-end path MTU discovery [PMTU]. Once the path MTU is
discovered, an application that chooses to avoid fragmentation may do
so by originating IP packets that fit within the path MTU en route
and setting the DF (Don't Fragment) bit in the IP header, so the
intermediate nodes en route do not fragment the IP packets. The
following sub-sections discuss the need for NAT devices to honor the
DF bit in the IP header and be able to generate "Packet Too Big" ICMP
Error message when they cannot forward the IP packet without
fragmentation. Also discussed is the need to seamlessly forward ICMP
Error messages generated by other intermediate devices.
7.1.1. Generating "Packet Too Big" ICMP Error Message
When a router is unable to forward a datagram because it exceeds the
MTU of the next-hop network and its Don't Fragment (DF) bit is set,
the router is required by [RFC1812] to return an ICMP Destination
Unreachable message to the source of the datagram, with the code
indicating "fragmentation needed and DF set". Further, [PMTU] states
that the router MUST include the MTU of that next-hop network in the
low-order 16 bits of the ICMP header field that is labeled "unused"
in the ICMP specification [ICMP].
A NAT device MUST honor the DF bit in the IP header of the packets
that transit the device. The NAT device may not be able to forward
an IP packet without fragmentation if the MTU on the forwarding
interface of the NAT device is not adequate for the IP packet. If
the DF bit is set on a transit IP packet and the NAT device cannot
forward the packet without fragmentation, the NAT device MUST send a
"Packet Too Big" ICMP message (ICMP type 3, code 4) with the next-hop
MTU back to the sender and drop the original IP packet. The sender
will usually resend after taking the appropriate corrective action.
If the DF bit is not set and the MTU on the forwarding interface of
the NAT device mandates fragmentation, the NAT device MUST fragment
the packet and forward the fragments [RFC1812].
7.1.2. Forwarding "Packet Too Big" ICMP Error Message
This is the flip side of the argument for the above section. By
virtue of the address translation NAT performs, NAT may end up being
the recipient of "Packet Too Big" messages.
When the NAT device is the recipient of a "Packet Too Big" ICMP
message from the network, the NAT device MUST forward the ICMP
message back to the intended recipient, pursuant to the previously
stated requirements (REQ-3, REQ-4, and REQ-5).
7.2. Time Exceeded Message
A NAT device MUST generate a "Time Exceeded" ICMP Error message when
it discards a packet due to an expired Time to Live (TTL) field. A
NAT device MAY have a per-interface option to disable origination of
these messages on that interface, but that option MUST default to
allowing the messages to be originated.
When a NAT device conforms to the above requirement, it ensures that
legacy applications such as Traceroute [RFC1470], [MS-TRCRT], which
depend upon the "Time Exceeded" ICMP Error message, will continue to
operate even as NAT devices are en route.
7.3. Source Route Options
A NAT device MAY support modifying IP addresses in the source route
option so the IP addresses in the source route option are realm
relevant. If a NAT device does not support forwarding packets with
the source route option, the NAT device SHOULD NOT forward outbound
ICMP messages that contain the source route option in the outer or
inner IP header. This is because such messages could reveal private
IP addresses to the external realm.
7.4. Address Mask Request/Reply Messages
Section 4.3.3.9 of [RFC1812] says an IP router MUST implement support
for receiving ICMP Address Mask Request messages and responding with
ICMP Address Mask Reply messages. However, several years (more than
13 years at the time of this document) have elapsed since the text in
RFC 1812 was written. In the intervening time, DHCP [DHCP] has
replaced the use of address mask request/reply. At the current time,
there is rarely any host that does not meet host requirements
[RFC1122] and needs a NAT device to support address mask
request/reply.
For this reason, a NAT device is not required to support this ICMP
message.
A NAT device MAY support address mask request/reply messages.
7.5. Parameter Problem Message
Section 4.3.3.5 of [RFC1812] says an IP router MUST generate a
Parameter Problem message for any error not specifically covered by
another ICMP message. However, this message is rarely used in
practice in networks where IPv4 NATs are deployed.
For this reason, a NAT device is not required to support this ICMP
message.
A NAT device MAY support parameter problem messages.
7.6. Router Advertisement and Solicitations
Section 4.3.3.10 of [RFC1812] says an IP router MUST support the
router part of the ICMP Router Discovery Protocol on all connected
networks on which the router supports either IP multicast or IP
broadcast addressing. However, this message is rarely used in
practice in networks where IPv4 NATs are deployed.
For this reason, a NAT device is not required to support this ICMP
message.
A NAT device MAY support Router Advertisement and Solicitations.
7.7. DS Field Usage
[RFC1812] refers to the Type of Service (TOS) octet in the IP header,
which contains the TOS and IP precedence fields. However, the TOS
and IP precedence fields are no longer in use today. [RFC2474]
renamed the TOS octet as the DS field and defined diffserv classes
within the DS field.
When generating an ICMP message, a NAT device SHOULD copy the
diffserv class of the message that causes the sending of the ICMP
error message. A NAT device MAY allow configuration of the diffserv
class to be used for the different types of ICMP messages.
8. Non-QueryError ICMP Messages
In the preceding sections, ICMP requirements were identified for NAT
devices, with a primary focus on ICMP Query and ICMP Error messages,
as defined in the Terminology Section (see Section 2). This document
provides no guidance on the handling of Non-QueryError ICMP messages
by the NAT devices. A NAT MAY drop or appropriately handle Non-
QueryError ICMP messages.
REQ-11: A NAT MAY drop or appropriately handle Non-QueryError
ICMP messages. The semantics of Non-QueryError ICMP messages
is defined in Section 2.
9. Summary of Requirements
Below is a summary of all the requirements.
REQ-1: Unless explicitly overridden by local policy, a NAT device
MUST permit ICMP Queries and their associated responses, when
the Query is initiated from a private host to the external
hosts.
a) NAT mapping of ICMP Query Identifiers SHOULD be external
host independent.
REQ-2: An ICMP Query session timer MUST NOT expire in less than 60
seconds.
a) It is RECOMMENDED that the ICMP Query session timer be made
configurable.
REQ-3: When an ICMP Error packet is received, if the ICMP checksum
fails to validate, the NAT SHOULD silently drop the ICMP Error
packet. If the ICMP checksum is valid, do the following:
a) If the IP checksum of the embedded packet fails to
validate, the NAT SHOULD silently drop the Error packet;
and
b) If the embedded packet includes IP options, the NAT device
MUST traverse past the IP options to locate the start of
the transport header for the embedded packet; and
c) The NAT device SHOULD NOT validate the transport checksum
of the embedded packet within an ICMP Error message, even
when it is possible to do so; and
d) If the ICMP Error payload contains ICMP extensions
[ICMP-EXT], the NAT device MUST exclude the optional zero-
padding and the ICMP extensions when evaluating transport
checksum for the embedded packet.
REQ-4: If a NAT device receives an ICMP Error packet from an external
realm, and the NAT device does not have an active mapping for
the embedded payload, the NAT SHOULD silently drop the ICMP
Error packet. If the NAT has active mapping for the embedded
payload, then the NAT MUST do the following prior to
forwarding the packet, unless explicitly overridden by local
policy:
a) Revert the IP and transport headers of the embedded IP
packet to their original form, using the matching mapping;
and
b) Leave the ICMP Error type and code unchanged; and
c) Modify the destination IP address of the outer IP header to
be same as the source IP address of the embedded packet
after translation.
REQ-5: If a NAT device receives an ICMP Error packet from the private
realm, and the NAT does not have an active mapping for the
embedded payload, the NAT SHOULD silently drop the ICMP Error
packet. If the NAT has active mapping for the embedded
payload, then the NAT MUST do the following prior to
forwarding the packet, unless explicitly overridden by local
policy.
a) Revert the IP and transport headers of the embedded IP
packet to their original form, using the matching mapping;
and
b) Leave the ICMP Error type and code unchanged; and
c) If the NAT enforces Basic NAT function [NAT-TRAD], and the
NAT has active mapping for the IP address that sent the
ICMP Error, translate the source IP address of the ICMP
Error packet with the public IP address in the mapping. In
all other cases, translate the source IP address of the
ICMP Error packet with its own public IP address.
REQ-6: While processing an ICMP Error packet pertaining to an ICMP
Query or Query response message, a NAT device MUST NOT refresh
or delete the NAT Session that pertains to the embedded
payload within the ICMP Error packet.
REQ-7: NAT devices enforcing Basic NAT ([NAT-TRAD]) MUST support the
traversal of hairpinned ICMP Query sessions. All NAT devices
(i.e., Basic NAT as well as NAPT devices) MUST support the
traversal of hairpinned ICMP Error messages.
a) When forwarding a hairpinned ICMP Error message, the NAT
device MUST translate the destination IP address of the
outer IP header to be same as the source IP address of the
embedded IP packet after the translation.
REQ-8: When a NAT device is unable to establish a NAT Session for a
new transport-layer (TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc.) flow due to
resource constraints or administrative restrictions, the NAT
device SHOULD send an ICMP destination unreachable message,
with a code of 13 (Communication administratively prohibited)
to the sender, and drop the original packet.
REQ-9: A NAT device MAY implement a policy control that prevents ICMP
messages being generated toward certain interface(s).
Implementation of such a policy control overrides the MUSTs
and SHOULDs in REQ-10.
REQ-10: Unless overridden by REQ-9's policy, a NAT device needs to
support ICMP messages as below, some conforming to Section
4.3 of [RFC1812] and some superseding the requirements of
Section 4.3 of [RFC1812]:
a. MUST support:
1. Destination Unreachable Message, as described in Section
7.1 of this document.
2. Time Exceeded Message, as described in Section 7.2 of
this document.
3. Echo Request/Reply Messages, as described in REQ-1.
b. MAY support:
1. Redirect Message, as described in Section 4.3.3.2 of
[RFC1812].
2. Timestamp and Timestamp Reply Messages, as described in
Section 4.3.3.8 of [RFC1812].
3. Source Route Options, as described in Section 7.3 of
this document.
4. Address Mask Request/Reply Message, as described in
Section 7.4 of this document.
5. Parameter Problem Message, as described in Section 7.5
of this document.
6. Router Advertisement and Solicitations, as described in
Section 7.6 of this document.
c. SHOULD NOT support:
1. Source Quench Message, as described in Section 4.3.3.3
of [RFC1812].
2. Information Request/reply, as described in Section
4.3.3.7 of [RFC1812].
In addition, a NAT device is RECOMMENDED to conform to the
following implementation considerations:
d. DS Field Usage, as described in Section 7.7 of this
document.
e. When Not to Send ICMP Errors, as described in Section
4.3.2.7 of [RFC1812].
f. Rate Limiting, as described in Section 4.3.2.8 of
[RFC1812].
REQ-11: A NAT MAY drop or appropriately handle Non-QueryError ICMP
messages. The semantics of Non-QueryError ICMP messages is
defined in Section 2.
10. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security concerns related to
ICMP message handling in the NAT devices. However, the requirements
in the document do mitigate some security concerns known to exist
with ICMP messages.
[ICMP-ATK] lists a number of ICMP attacks that can be directed
against end host TCP stacks. For example, a rogue entity could
bombard the NAT device with a large number of ICMP Errors. If the
NAT device did not validate the legitimacy of the ICMP Error packets,
the ICMP Errors would be forwarded directly to the end nodes. End
hosts not capable of defending themselves against such bogus ICMP
Error attacks could be adversely impacted by such attacks. Req-3
recommends validating the ICMP checksum and the IP checksum of the
embedded payload prior to forwarding. These checksum validations by
themselves do not protect end hosts from attacks. However, checksum
validation mitigates end hosts from malformed ICMP Error attacks.
Req-4 and Req-5 further mandate that when a NAT device does not find
a mapping selection for the embedded payload, the NAT should drop the
ICMP Error packets, without forwarding.
A rogue source could also try to send bogus ICMP Error messages for
the active NAT sessions, with intent to destroy the sessions. Req-6
averts such an attack by ensuring that an ICMP Error message does not
affect the state of a session on the NAT device.
Req-8 recommends a NAT device sending an ICMP Error message when the
NAT device is unable to create a NAT session due to lack of
resources. Some administrators may choose not to have the NAT device
send an ICMP Error message, as doing so could confirm to a malicious
attacker that the attack has succeeded. For this reason, sending of
the specific ICMP Error message stated in REQ-8 is left to the
discretion of the NAT device administrator.
Unfortunately, ICMP messages are sometimes blocked at network
boundaries due to local security policy. Thus, some of the
requirements in this document allow local policy to override the
recommendations of this document. Blocking such ICMP messages is
known to break some protocol features (most notably path MTU
Discovery) and some applications (e.g., ping, traceroute), and such
blocking is NOT RECOMMENDED.
11. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Fernando Gont, Dan Wing, Carlos Pignataro,
Philip Matthews, and members of the BEHAVE working group for doing a
thorough review of early versions of the document and providing
valuable input and offering generous amounts of their time in shaping
the ICMP requirements. Their valuable feedback made this document a
better read. Dan Wing and Fernando Gont were a steady source of
encouragement. Fernando Gont spent many hours preparing slides and
presenting the document in an IETF meeting on behalf of the authors.
The authors wish to thank Carlos Pignataro and Dan Tappan, authors of
the [ICMP-EXT] document, for their feedback concerning ICMP
extensions. The authors wish to thank Philip Matthews for agreeing
to be a technical reviewer for the document. Lastly, the authors
highly appreciate the rigorous feedback from the IESG members.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[BEH-UDP] Audet, F., Ed., and C. Jennings, "Network Address
Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast
UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, January 2007.
[ICMP] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[ICMP-EXT] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
April 2007.
[NAT-TRAD] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, January
2001.
[RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, June 1995.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
12.2. Informative References
[BEH-APP] Ford, B., Srisuresh, P., and D. Kegel, "Application Design
Guidelines for Traversal through Network Address
Translators", Work in Progress, March 2007.
[BEH-TCP] Guha, S., Ed., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
RFC 5382, October 2008.
[DHCP] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC
2131, March 1997.
[ICE] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", Work in Progress,
October 2007.
[ICMP-ATK] Gont, F., "ICMP Attacks against TCP", Work in Progress,
October 2008.
[MS-TRCRT] Microsoft Support, "How to use the Tracert command-line
utility to troubleshoot TCP/IP problems in Windows",
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/162326, October, 2006.
[NAT-MIB] Rohit, R., Srisuresh, P., Raghunarayan, R., Pai, N., and
C. Wang, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Network
Address Translators (NAT)", RFC 4008, March 2005.
[NAT-TERM] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC
2663, August 1999.
[PMTU] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1256] Deering, S., Ed., "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC
1256, September 1991.
[RFC1470] Enger, R. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on a Network Management
Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and Debugging TCP/IP
Internets and Interconnected Devices", FYI 2, RFC 1470,
June 1993.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December
1998.
[RFC4065] Kempf, J., "Instructions for Seamoby and Experimental
Mobility Protocol IANA Allocations", RFC 4065, July 2005.
[TCP-SOFT] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461,
February 2009.
[UNSAF] Daigle, L., Ed., and IAB, "IAB Considerations for
UNilateral Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network
Address Translation", RFC 3424, November 2002.
Authors' Addresses
Pyda Srisuresh
Kazeon Systems, Inc.
1161 San Antonio Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
U.S.A.
Phone: +1 408 836 4773
EMail: srisuresh@yahoo.com
Bryan Ford
Max Planck Institute for Software Systems
Campus Building E1 4
D-66123 Saarbruecken
Germany
Phone: +49-681-9325657
EMail: baford@mpi-sws.org
Senthil Sivakumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7100-8 Kit Creek Road
PO Box 14987
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
U.S.A.
Phone: +1 919 392 5158
EMail: ssenthil@cisco.com
Saikat Guha
Cornell University
331 Upson Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
U.S.A.
Phone: +1 607 255 1008
EMail: saikat@cs.cornell.edu