Internet Draft A.Uzelac, Ed.
SPEERMINT Global Crossing
Intended status: Informational Y.Lee, Ed.
Expires: Aug 2008 Comcast
February 4, 2008
VoIP SIP Peering Use Cases
draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-05.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on Aug 4, 2008.
Abstract
This document will capture VoIP use case for SIP Peering. This
document depicts many common VoIP peering use cases. These use cases
are categorized into two types: static and on-demand, and then
further subcategorized into direct and indirect. These use cases are
not an exhaustive set, but rather the most common use cases deployed
today. This document captures them to provide a reference.
Uzelac, Lee (et al) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Terminology....................................................3
3. Reference Architecture.........................................3
4. Contexts of Use Cases..........................................4
5. Use Cases......................................................5
5.1. Static Peering Use Cases..................................5
5.1.1. Static Direct Peering Use Case..........................6
5.1.1.1. Administrative characteristics........................7
5.1.1.2. Options and Nuances...................................7
5.1.2. Static Direct via Assisting Entity (Hub/Spoke)..........7
5.1.2.1. Administrative Characteristics........................8
5.1.2.2. Options and Nuances...................................8
5.1.3. Static Indirect Use Cases...............................9
5.1.4. Static Indirect Peering ? SIP and Media via I-SSP.......9
5.1.4.1. Administrative characteristics.......................10
5.1.4.2. Options and Nuances..................................10
5.1.5. Static Indirect ? Signaling via I-SSP..................11
5.2. On-demand Peering Use Cases..............................12
5.2.1. On-demand Direct Peering Use Case......................12
5.2.1.1. Administrative characteristics.......................12
5.2.1.2. Options and Nuances..................................12
5.3. Federations..............................................13
5.3.1. Federation Considerations..............................13
5.3.2. Federation Examples....................................13
5.3.2.1. Trivial Federations..................................13
5.3.2.2. Access List based....................................14
5.3.2.3. TLS based Federations................................14
5.3.2.4. Central SIP Proxy....................................14
6. Architecture, scalability and business scalability............15
7. Security Considerations.......................................15
8. IANA Considerations...........................................15
References.......................................................16
Normative References..........................................16
Informative References........................................17
Author's Addresses............................................17
Full Copyright Statement......................................18
Intellectual Property.........................................18
Acknowledgment................................................18
1. Introduction
This document attempts to capture VoIP use cases for Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)[1] based peering. These use cases will
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
assist in identifying requirements and future works for VoIP Peering
using SIP.
Only use cases related to VoIP are considered in this document.
Other real-time SIP communications use cases, like Instant Messaging
(IM) and presence are out of scope for this document. In describing
use cases, the intent is descriptive, not prescriptive.
There are existing documents [2][3][4][5][6] that have captured use
case scenarios. This draft draws from those documents. The document
categories use cases into the following groupings; static or on-
demand, then they are further subdivided into direct and indirect.
Using this categorization, the use cases contained in this document
attempts to be as comprehensive as possible, but should not be
considered the exclusive set of use cases.
2. Terminology
In this document, we use ?O? to indicate ?Originating?, ?T? to
indicate ?Terminating?, and ?I? to indicate ?Indirect?. For example,
O-SSP is the acronym of Originating SIP Service Provider.
3. Reference Architecture
The diagram below provides the reader with a context for the VoIP use
cases in this draft.
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
+-------------------+-------------------------+-------------------+
| | Indirect SSP Domain | |
| | | |
| | +------+ +------+ | |
| | +I-LUF + + I-LRF| | |
| | +------+ +------+ | |
| | | |
| | +-------+ | |
| | |I-Proxy| | |
| | +-------+ | |
| | | |
| | +------+ +------+ | |
| | | I-SBE| | I-DBE| | |
| \ +------+ +------+ / |
| +------+ \ / +------+ |
| +-----+O-LUF + \ / +T-LUF +-----+ |
| | +O-LRF + \ / +T-LRF + | |
| | +------+ \ / +------+ | |
| | \ / | |
| | +------+ \ / +------+ | |
| | | O-SBE+ \ / + T-SBE| | |
| | +---+--+ \ / +---+--+ | |
| | | \ / | | |
| | | \ / | | |
| | +---+---+ \ / +---+---+ | |
| +-----+O-Proxy| \ / |T-Proxy+--- + |
| +-----+-+ + ++------+ |
| +----+ | | | +----+ |
| |UAC +---------+ | +---------+ UAS| |
| +----+ +------+ | +------+ +----+ |
| | O-DBE| | | T-DBE| |
| +------+ | +------+ |
| | |
| Originating SSP Domain | Terminating SSP Domain |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1 Generalized Overview
PLEASE NOTE: In figure one ? the elements defined are optional in
many use cases.
4. Contexts of Use Cases
Use cases are sorted into two general groupings: Static and On-demand
Peering [15]. Each grouping can further sub-divided to Direct Peering
and Indirect Peering [15]. Though there may be some overlap among the
use cases in these categories, there are different requirements
between the scenarios. Each use-case has to specify how a few core
operations which are to be performed by its members.
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
These can include:
1) Peer Discovery via a Look-up function to determine the
administrative domain to direct the call to.
2) A location determination process that serves to create the Session
Establishment Data (SED). Examples: Public User-ENUM, public
Infrastructure ENUM, private ENUM tree, SIP Redirect, DUNDi.
3) Next Hop determination based on the SED. If a location function
query did not return an URI of the form sip:user@IP-address, then the
originating SSP has to translate the domain part of the URI to an IP-
address (plus perhaps fall-backs) in order to contact the next hop.
Examples: RFC3263 in the public DNS. RFC3263 in a federation private
DNS. RFC3263 in the public DNS with split-DNS, P2P SIP, modified
RFC3263 in the public DNS (e.g. a federation-specific prefix to the
domain name).
4) Call setup ? SSPs that are interconnecting to one another may also
define specifics on what SIP features need to be used when contacting
the next hop in order to a) reach the next hop at all and b) to prove
that the sender is a legitimate peering partner.
Examples: hard-code transport (TCP/UDP/TLS), non-standard port
number, specific source IP address (e.g. in a private L3 network),
which TLS client certificate to use, other authentication scheme.
5) Call reception ? This step serves to ensure that the type of
relationship (static or on-demand, indirect or direct) is understood.
For instance, the receiving side border elements need to determine
whether the INVITE it just received really came from a member of the
federation. This is the flip side of step four. Example: verify TLS
cert, check incoming interface/VLAN,check source IP address against a
configured list of valid ones.
5. Use Cases
Please note there are intra-domain message flows within the use cases
to serve as supporting background information. Only inter-domain
communications are germane to Speermint.
5.1. Static Peering Use Cases
Static Peering [15] describes two SSP form the peering relationship
with pre-association. Pre-association is a prerequisite to static
peering.
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
5.1.1. Static Direct Peering Use Case
This is the simplest form of a peering use case. Two SSP negotiate
and agree to establish a SIP peering relation. The peer connection is
statically configured and directly connected two SSP. The peers may
exchange peer information such as DSCP policies, subscriber SIP-URI
and proxy location prior to establishing the connection. They only
accept traffic originating directly from the trusted peer.
+------------------+-------------------+
| Orig SSP | Term SSP |
| +--------+ | +--------+ |
| | O-LUF | | | T-LUF | |
| | O-LRF | | | T-LRF | |
| +--------+ | +--------+ |
| (2) / | |
| /(3) | |
| +-------+ | +-------+ |
| |O-Proxy|------(4)------|T-Proxy| |
| +-------+ | +-------+ |
| | | | |
| (1) | (5) |
| | | | |
| +----+ | +----+ |
| | UAC+===(6)=(RTP)=======+ UAS+ |
| +----+ | +----+ |
+------------------+-------------------+
Figure 2 Direct Peering
The following is a high-level depiction of the use case.
1. UAC initiates a call via SIP INVITE
2. O-Proxy queries for SED information from a routing database.
3. Routing database entity replies with SED to called party
4. Call sent to terminating domain proxy.
5. T-Proxy determines called party status and directs call to
called party.
6. RTP is established between UAC and UAS.
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
5.1.1.1. Administrative characteristics
The static direct peering use case is typically implemented in a
scenario where exists a strong degree of trust between the two
administrative domains. Both administrative domains normally sign a
peer agreement which state clearly the peering policies and terms.
5.1.1.2. Options and Nuances
In Figure 2, O-Proxy and T-Proxy connect directly. An operator may
decide to deploy a SBE between its proxy and the peer network.
Normally, the operator will deploy the SBE in the edge of its
administrative domain. The signaling traffic will pass between two
networks through the SBE. The operator has many reasons to deploy a
SBE. For example, the proxy may use RFC1918 addresses that are not
routable in the peer operator network. The SBE can perform a NAT
function. Also, the SBE eases the operation cost for deploying or
removing L5 network elements. Consider the deployment architecture
where multiple proxies connect to a single SBE. An operator can add
or remove a proxy without coordinating with the peer operator. The
peer operator ?sees? only the SBE. As long as the SBE maintain
intact, the peer operator does not need to be notified.
When an operator deploys a SBE, the operator is required to advertise
the SBE to the peer LRF so that the peer operator can locate the SBE
and route the traffic to the SBE accordingly.
SBE deployment is a decision within an administrative domain. Either
administrative domain or both administrative domains can decide to
deploy SBE. To the peer network, most important is to identify the
next-hop address. Whether next-hop is a proxy or SBE, the peer
network will not see any difference.
5.1.2. Static Direct via Assisting Entity (Hub/Spoke)
The difference between Direct and Indirect Use Cases is the O-SSP
invokes an I-SSP to forward requests to T-SSP blindly, regardless of
LUF or LRF. This use case is also referring to a ?transit? model of
SIP peering. Similar to the On-demand Direct Use Case model, the I-
SSP must publicly announce that it accepts request and is capable to
route the request to the T-SSP.
Another On-demand Indirect Use Case is the Hub-and-Spoke use case. An
Assisting entity where only the LRF resides, serves as the hub for
multiple SSPs. Each SSP is the spoke to the Assisting Entity which
does not need to have direct L5 connections among other SSPs. To
originate a call to a T-SSP, the O-SSP will query the Assisting
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
Entity?s LRF. The response will facilitate indirect or direct
communications to the O-SSP. The Assisting entity can route the
Session to one of its served SSP. The routing logic in the Assisted
Entity is hidden to the SSP. Figure 4 shows the high-level network
setup.
+---------+
|Assisting|
| Entity |
| (LRF) |
+--+-+-+--+
| | |
| | |
| | |
+----------------+ | +------------------+
| | |
| | |
| | |
+---+----+ +---+----+ +---+----+
| | | | | |
| SSP1 | | SSP2 | ....... | SSPx |
| | | | | |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
Figure 3 Hub and spoke
5.1.2.1. Administrative Characteristics
The Hub-and-Spoke Use Case is commonly used in a Registry or
Directory call model, where both O-SSP and T-SSP do not have direct
Layer-5 connectivity. O-SSP and T-SSP choose an I-SSP and forms a
trusted relationship to I-SSP. As such, the I-SSP is the hub served
multiple spoke SSPs. Spoke SSP only have trusted relationship with I-
SSP. Spoke SSPs do not have trusted relationship among themselves.
They use I-SSP to assist them to route the signaling traffic. That
said, if Spoke SSPs have direct Layer-3 connectivity, Spoke SSP can
choose not to use I-SSP assistance for media traffic.
5.1.2.2. Options and Nuances
T-SSP shares the same problems of which On-demand Indirect Use Case
suffers. T-SSP should apply filter rules for VoIP spam. O-SSP, T-SSP
and I-SSP can deploy SBE and DBE for NAT traversal, admission control
and codec Transcoding.
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
5.1.3. Static Indirect Use Cases
Similar to the Static Direct Peering Use Case, O-SSP and T-SSP has
pre-arranged assignment for the peer relationship. The difference
between Static Direct Use Case and Static Indirect Use Case lies with
the Layer-5 relationship O-SSP and T-SSP maintain. In the Indirect
use case, the O-SSP and T-SSP do not have direct Layer-5
connectivity. They require one or multiple Indirect Domains to assist
routing the SIP messages and possibly the associated media.
5.1.4. Static Indirect Peering ? SIP and Media via I-SSP
In the following use case, all signaling and media between the O-SSP
and T-SSP flows through another SSP (Indirect SSP).
+--------------------+
| Indirect SSP |
| |
| +-------+ |
| +--+I-Proxy| |
| / +-+ I-LUF | |
| / / + I-LRF | |
+--------------------+ / / +-------+ +---------------------+
| Orig SSP |/ / | Term SSP |
| +-------------/ / | |
| / |/ | |
| / +----(3)-----+ | |
| (2) / | | |
| / / | | |
|+-------+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-------+ |
||O-Proxy|-(4)-|O-SBE|------+I-SBE+--(5)--+T-SBE+-(6)-|T-Proxy| |
|+-------+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-------+ |
| | | | | |
| (1) | | (7) |
| | | | | |
| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |
| | UAC +======|0-DBE|=(8)==+I-DBE+=======+T-DBE+======+ UAS | |
| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4 Indirect Peering via Indirect Domain (SIP and media)
1. UAC initiates a call.
2. The O-Proxy queries SED for the called party. O-SSP can query
its own LUF and LF for the SED if the information is available
within its domain. Alternatively, the I-SSP may provide the LUF
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
and LF for the O-SSP. In this setup, the query traverses the
administrative boundary between the originating and the Indirect
domains (as illustrated in Fig. 3).
3. The result of the query will be the I-SSP?s SBE (I-SBE) that is
interconnected to the T-SSP and the O-SBE.
4. O-Proxy signals the I-SBE via the O-SBE.
5. I-SBE routes call to T-SBE within T-SSP.
6. T-SBE signals T-Proxy.
7. T-Proxy signals the called party. (UAS)
8. RTP may be established between UAC and UAS via DBE path
typically coordinated by the I-SSP.
5.1.4.1. Administrative characteristics
The Static Indirect Use Case is normally implemented in cases where
no direct interconnection exists between originating and terminating
domains due to either business or physical constraints.
O-SSP .--. I-SSP = Relationship O-I
In the O-I relationship, typical policies, features or functions that
deem this relationship necessary are NP, Ubiquity of termination
options, and masquerading of originating VoIP network gear.
T-SSP .--. I-SSP = Relationship T-I
In the T-I relationship, typical policies, features or functions
observed consist of codec ?scrubbing?, anonimizing, and transcoding.
I-SSP must record-route and stay in the signalling path. T-SSP will
not accept message directly sent from O-SSP.
5.1.4.2. Options and Nuances
Similar to the Static Direct Peering Use Case, O-SSP and T-SSP may
deploy SBE and DBE for NAT traverse, security Transcoding, etc. I-SSP
can also deploy SBE and DBE for similar reasons. (as depicted in Fig.
3)
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
5.1.5. Static Indirect ? Signaling via I-SSP
The static indirect use case with signaling only shares many
properties with the static indirect use case for signaling and media.
There must exist a pre-associate between the O-SSP and T-SSP, but the
situation only pertains to administrative relations. The O and T
SSPs do not have direct Layer-5 connectivity; therefore require one
or multiple Indirect Domains to assist routing the SIP messages.
+--------------------+
| Indirect SSP |
| |
| +-------+ |
| +--+I-Proxy| |
| / +-+ I-LUF | |
| / / + I-LRF | |
+--------------------+ / / +-------+ +---------------------+
| Orig SSP |/ / | Term SSP |
| +-------------/ / | |
| / |/ | |
| / +----(3)-----+ | |
| (2) / +--------------------+ |
| / / | | |
|+-------+ +-----+ +-----+ +-------+ |
||O-Proxy|-----|O-SBE+--------(4)---------+T-SBE+-(5)-|T-Proxy| |
|+-------+ +-----+ +-----+ +-------+ |
| | | | | |
| (1) | | (6) |
| | | | | |
| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |
| | UAC +======|0-DBE|========(7)=========+T-DBE+======+ UAS | |
| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |
+--------------------+ +---------------------+
Figure 5 Indirect via I-SSP (SIP only)
1. UAC initiates a call.
2. The O-Proxy queries SED for the called party. O-SSP can query
its own LUF and LF for the SED if the information is available
within its domain. Alternatively, the I-SSP may provide the LUF
and LF for the O-SSP. In this setup, the query traverses the
administrative boundary between the originating and the Indirect
domains (as illustrated in Fig. 4).
3. The result of the query will be the T-SSP?s SBE (T-SBE) that is
interconnected to the O-SSP via the O-SBE.
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
4. O-SBE signals the T-SBE.
5. T-SBE signals T-Proxy.
6. T-Proxy signals the called party, UAS.
7. RTP may be established between UAC and UAS via DBE path
typically coordinated by the I-SSP.
5.2. On-demand Peering Use Cases
On-demand Peering [15] describes two SSPs form the peering
relationship without a pre-arranged agreement.
5.2.1. On-demand Direct Peering Use Case
The basis of this use case is built on the fact that there is NOT a
pre-established relationship between the O-SSP and the T-SSP. The O-
SSP and T-SSP did not share any information prior to the dialog
initiation request. When the O-Proxy invokes the LUF and LRF on the
R-URI, the terminating user information must be publicly available.
Besides, when the O-Proxy routes the request to the T-Proxy, the T-
Proxy must accept the request without any pre-association with O-SSP.
The call flow is identical to the Static Direct Peering Use Case
shown in Fig 2.
5.2.1.1. Administrative characteristics
The On-demand Direct Peering Use Case is typically implemented in a
scenario where the T-SSP allows any O-SSP to reach its serving
subscribers. T-SSP administrative domain does not require any pre-
arranged agreement to accept the call. T-SSP makes its subscribers
information available in public. This model mimics the Internet email
model. Sender does not need an pre-arranged agreement to send email
to the receiver.
5.2.1.2. Options and Nuances
Similar to Static Direct Peering Use Case, O-SSP and T-SSP can decide
to deploy SBE. T-SSP is open to the public, T-SSP should prepare to
suffer from the spam problem existing in email system. VoIP spamming
is considered more annoying than email spamming to the subscribers.
T-SSP should apply rules to filter spammed calls.
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
5.3. Federations
This section discusses the federation concept, explains which
technical parameters make up the foundation of a federation and
provides examples.
The concrete implementation details (e.g. "direct with one SBE"
versus "direct with two SBEs") can involve all the use cases thus far
described in the document.
5.3.1. Federation Considerations
5.3.2. Federation Examples
This section lists some examples of how federations can operate.
5.3.2.1. Trivial Federations
A private peering arrangement between two SSPs is a special case of
a federation. These two SSP have agreed to exchange calls amongst
themselves and they have set up whatever LUF/LS/SBE plus Layer 3
infrastructure they need to route and complete the calls. This can
be in a direct or indirect manner, but usually follows the direct
call model.
It is thus not needed to treat bi-lateral peerings as conceptually
different to federation-based peering.
On the other extreme, the set of all SSPs implementing an open SIP
service according to RFCs 3261/3263/3761 also fulfills the
definition of a federation. In that case, the technical rules are
contained in these three RFCs, the LS is the public DNS. Whether
some of these SSPs use SBCs as border elements is not relevant.
The administrative model of this federation is the "email model":
There is no "member list", any SIP server operating on the Internet
which implements call routing according to these RFCs is implicitly
a member of that federation. No business relationship is needed
between "members", thus no money is likely to change hands for
terminating calls. There is no contractual protection against
nuisance calls, SPIT, or denial of service attacks.
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
5.3.2.2. Access List based
If running an open SIP proxy is not desired, then a group of SSPs
which want to allow calls from each other can collect the list of
IP addresses of all their border elements.
This list is redistributed to all members which use it to configure
firewalls in front of their ingress elements. Thus calls from
other members of this federation are accepted while calls from
other hosts on the Internet are blocked.
Whether SSPs deploy SBEs as border elements is not relevant. Call
routing can still be done via standard RFC rules.
Whenever a new member joins this club every other SSP needs to
adapt its filter rules.
5.3.2.3. TLS based Federations
Another option to restrict incoming calls to federation members is
to use Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates as access
control. This works best if the federation runs a certificate
authority (CA) which signs the TLS keys of each member SSP. Thus
the ingress element of a SSP needs to check only whether the client
certificate presented by the calling SIP proxy contains a proper
signature from that CA.
Adding support for Certificate Revocation Lists solves the issue of
blocking calls from former members of that federation. The main
benefit of this model is that no changes need to be made at the
ingress element of all old members whenever a SSP joins that
federation.
5.3.2.4. Central SIP Proxy
One way to simplify the management of these firewall rules is to
route all SIP messages via a central proxy.
In that case, all federation members just need to open up their
ingress elements to requests from that central server. A new SSP
just triggers a change in the configuration of this box and not at
all other SSPs.
While centralized solutions may entail typical hub-and-spoke
architecture considerations, the added overall federation
scalability with respect to the number of interconnects required,
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
their associated policies and management make this approach quite
popular today.
This is an example of Indirect Peering.
6. Architecture, scalability and business scalability
The network architecture which in the case centralized model would
reflect a hub and spoke model - should be weighed against a
distributed model. While such a centralized model presents well-
known network and server scalability challenges, a distributed
model requires higher interconnection complexity, reflected in
provisioning and the need for the maintenance of such
relationships.
7. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations. However,
it is important to note that session interconnect, as described in
this document, has a wide variety of security issues that should be
considered in documents addressing both protocol and use case
analyzes.
8. IANA Considerations
This document creates no new requirements on IANA namespaces
[RFC2434].
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
References
Normative References
[1] 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.
[2] Schwartz, David, draft-schwartz-speermint-use-cases-federations
[3] Mahy, Rohan, draft-mahy-speermint-direct-peering
[4] Lendl, Otmar, draft-lendl-speermint-federations
[5] Lee, Yiu, draft-lee-speermint-use-case-cable
[6] Uzelac, Adam, draft-uzelac-speermint-use-cases
[7] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002.
[8] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J., and
T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions", RFC
3546, June 2003.
[9] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
RFC 3550, July 2003.
[10] Peterson, J., Liu, H., Yu, J., and B. Campbell, "Using E.164
numbers with the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3824,
June 2004.
[11] Peterson, J., ?Address Resolution for Instant Messaging and
Presence?,RFC 3861, August 2004.
[12] Peterson, J., "Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service
Registration for Presence Services", RFC 3953, January 2005.
[13] ETSI TS 102 333: " Telecommunications and Internet converged
Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); Gate
control protocol".
[14] Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764, April 2004.
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 2008
Informative References
[15] Meyer, D., "SPEERMINT Terminology", draft-ietf-speermint-
terminology-06 (work in progress), 2006.
[16] Mule, J-F., ?SPEERMINT Requirements for SIP-based VoIP
Interconnection?, draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-00.txt,
June 2006.
[17] Camarillo, G. ?Requirements from SIP (Session Initiation
Protocol) Session Border Control Deployments?, draft-camarillo-
sipping-sbc-funcs-04.txt, June, 2006.
[18] Habler, M., et al., ?A Federation based VOIP Peering
Architecture?, draft-lendl-speermint-federations-03.txt,
September 2006.
Author's Addresses
Adam Uzelac
Global Crossing
Email: adam.uzelac@globalcrossing.com
Rohan Mahy
Plantronics
Email: rohan@ekabal.com
Yiu L. Lee
Comcast Cable Communications
Email: yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com
David Schwartz
Xconnect Global Networks
Email: dschwartz@xconnect.net
Eli Katz
Xconnect Global Networks
Email: ekatz@xconnect.net
Otmar Lendl
enum.at GmbH
Email: otmar.lendl@enum.at
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases Aug 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Uzelac, Lee (et al.) Expires Aug 4, 2008 [Page 18]
