RFC 5597: Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document defines a set of requirements for NATs handling the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP). These requirements allow DCCP applications, such as streaming applications, to operate consistently, and they are very similar to the TCP requirements for NATs, which have already been published by the IETF. Ensuring that NATs meet this set of requirements will greatly increase the likelihood that applications using DCCP will function properly. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5597
- Published
- September 2009
- Authors
- R. Denis-Courmont
- Status
- BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- tsv
- Pages
- 9
- Also known as
- BCP150
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5596Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Simultaneous-Open Technique to Facilitate NAT/Middlebox TraversalCurrent
September 2009
- RFC 6323Sender RTT Estimate Option for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)Current
July 2011
- RFC 6773DCCP-UDP: A Datagram Congestion Control Protocol UDP Encapsulation for NAT TraversalCurrent
November 2012
- RFC 6633Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench MessagesCurrent
May 2012
- RFC 7605Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport Port NumbersCurrent
August 2015
- RFC 9897Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple AddressesCurrent
January 2026
- RFC 5595The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Service CodesUpdated
September 2009
- RFC 5622Profile for Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion ID 4: TCP-Friendly Rate Control for Small Packets (TFRC-SP)Updated
August 2009
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?