One document matched: draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00.txt
P2PSIP D. Bryan
Internet-Draft SIPeerior Technologies, Inc.
Intended status: Informational E. Shim
Expires: May 10, 2008 Locus Telecom
B. Lowekamp
SIPeerior; William & Mary
S. Dawkins, Ed.
Huawei (USA)
November 7, 2007
Application Scenarios for Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol
(P2PSIP)
draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00
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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 10, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document attempts to identify and classify application scenarios
of P2P based SIP. It does not attempt to exhaustively enumerate
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
these scenarios, and is focused exclusively on scenarios related to
real-time IP communication.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Application Scenario Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Application Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Global Internet Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. Public P2P VoIP Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2. Open Global P2P VoIP Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.3. Wide Area Networks of Consumer Electronics Devices . . 7
4.1.4. Multimedia content sharing via Application Layer
Multicasting (Content Providers or Ad Hoc) . . . . . . 8
4.2. Environments with Limited Connectivity to the Internet
or Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Ad-Hoc and Ephemeral Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2. Extending the Reach of Mobile Devices . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.3. Impeded Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.4. Local Area Networks of Consumer Electronics Devices . 12
4.3. Managed, Private Network Environments . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.1. Serverless or Small Scale IP-PBX . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.2. P2P for Redundant SIP Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.3. Failover for Centralized Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Changes from draft-bryan-p2psip-usecases-00 . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Editorial Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
1. Introduction
This document attempts to identify and classify application scenarios
for Peer-to-Peer (P2P) based Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
[RFC3261]. Identifying application scenarios will help to understand
and clarify requirements of P2PSIP. In particular, these application
scenarios will assist the P2PSIP community in identifying
commonalities and differences between requirements for different
application scenarios, which in turn will help define the near-term
scope of specifications and provide a perspective on future
specifications.
Only application scenarios related to real-time IP communications,
such as VoIP, Instant Messaging (IM), and presence are considered in
this document. Application scenarios of other kinds, even if
interesting and possibly useful applications of P2PSIP, are out of
scope for this document. Thus, application scenarios described
herein are application scenarios of P2P IP real-time communications,
and P2PSIP is a protocol choice rather than a constraining factor for
most of them. In describing application scenarios, no deliberation
on implementation is provided. Some of the application scenarios
presented may already be implemented or deployed, possibly using
proprietary technology.
The list of application scenarios compiled here is by no means a
complete list of uses cases of P2PSIP, and further cases would be
limited only by the imagination. P2PSIP participants who expect to
use P2PSIP technology for application scenarios that don't match any
of the combinations of attributes included in this document are
invited to contribute descriptions of additional application
scenarios to the P2PSIP working group mailing list.
We tried to capture the deployment characteristics of the application
scenarios such as whether the nodes will span over multiple physical
network administrative domains or whether the ID must be controlled
by a central authority. The characteristics are presented as
scenario-attribute tables. The values in the tables are what we
think are most likely and we understand there may be similar
scenarios with different choices for some attribute values.
Some of these application scenarios, while difficult to implement
using a traditional client server SIP (CS SIP) architecture may not
require P2P and could be implemented in other ways. While these have
often been presented as scenarios calling for P2P communication, the
authors recognize that other technologies may also be applicable to
these application scenarios.
Since the original iteration of this document, the P2PSIP WG has been
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
formed and numerous documents have been submitted that include some
number of application scenarios. We will not try to enumerate them
here. This draft draws from these documents, as well as discussions
at the P2PSIP ad-hoc and WG meetings and numerous mailing list and
personal conversations of the authors.
2. Terminology
We use terminology defined in RFC 3261 [RFC3261] in this document
without further definition.
We use terminology defined in Concepts and Terminology for Peer to
Peer SIP [I-D.willis-p2psip-concepts] draft in this document without
further definition.
We define the attributes used in the discussion of each application
scenario in Section 3.
3. Application Scenario Attributes
The attributes used in the application scenarios matrixes in
subsequent sections are explained here.
Application Scenario: The name of an application scenario
(previously called a "use case").
Section in Draft: A cross-reference to the section number in this
draft where the application scenario is described.
Number of Peers: The number of peers that will be active in an
overlay at any given point in time.
Number of Users: The number of users that will be served by an
overlay at any given point in time.
Note that if there are more users than peers, this implies that
some client protocol is required, whether "client protocol" is
a P2PSIP client protocol or the SIP protocol (if the P2PSIP
overlay is also providing RFC 3263 [RFC3263]-style routing for
unmodified SIP clients).
Overlay spans administrative domains: Whether the overlay spans
across multiple physical network administrative domains. If
"yes", this makes IP multicast and centralized operations and
management unlikely.
Multicast Available: Whether "application-level multicast", "IP
multicast", or "link multicast" may be available for a typical
overlay.
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
Note that these are ordered - link multicast implies IP
multicast could be available, and IP multicast implies
application-level multicast could be available.
P2P Client Support: Whether the overlay need to support a P2P Client
protocol, i.e., whether the overlay contains P2P Clients as
well as Peers.
Interoperation with CS-SIP: Whether the overlay must also interact
with legacy SIP clients and SIP proxies.
Note that one or more peers in the overlay may also act as PSTN
gateways.
Non-stop Operation: Whether this application scenarios allows the
overlay to become unavailable for periods of time (for example,
could an overlay stop operating in order to change DHT
algorithms, or would the overlay have to support two DHT
algorithms in "ships in the night" mode?)
Centralized Operations and Management: Whether any centralized
operations/management entity is responsible for successful
operation of the overlay.
Centralized ID Control: Whether ID assignment by central authority
is required within an overlay (basically, whether the overlay
can be Sybil-attacked - the theory is that if IDs are
controlled by a centralized entity, overlay operators simply
remove misbehaving users from the authorization registry).
Supports Anonymous Users: Whether this application scenario allows
users to connect to an overlay without providing any identity.
Carrier-Class Robustness: Whether the overlay must provide reliable
storage and retrieval in the face of node failure.
NATs within a single overlay Whether the peer protocol must expect
to perform NAT traversal as part of normal operation.
DNS available: Whether DNS is available so that peers may perform
DNS lookups as part of the overlay JOIN operation.
End-to-end SIP Encryption: Whether this application scenario
requires SIP traffic between two peers to be encrypted, so SIP
requests and responses are not visible to intermediate peers
(peers that forward traffic between two peers that aren't
directly connected). In these cases, hop-by-hop TLS
encryption, although appropriate when traversing trusted SIP
Proxies, is not appropriate when traversing untrusted P2PSIP
Peers.
4. Application Scenarios
Application scenarios are grouped according to the characteristics of
the network environment in which the end users or devices
participating in the P2P overlay are communicating with each other.
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
4.1. Global Internet Environment
The global Internet environment consists of a large number of
autonomous networks with diverse characteristics. Thus, there is no
central administration or network control of the physical network on
a global scale. Communication paths between two remote devices may
span multiple administrative domains and should be assumed to be
insecure. Note that most well-known P2P file sharing overlay
networks have operated in this environment.
4.1.1. Public P2P VoIP Service Providers
Skype is an outstanding example of a public VoIP service provider
using P2P technology among end user devices, although Skype uses a
proprietary protocol. Recent research has shown [skypestudy] that
Skype uses a central login server, responsible for management of
registered user names. End users are authenticated via a certificate
signed by a central server. End user devices are distributed across
the global Internet. The number of participating end user devices is
very large. A major motivation of using P2P between end user devices
for a commercial VoIP service is a reduction in infrastructure and
operational costs.
Table 1 provides a high-level overview of this category.
+------------------------+----------------------+-------------------+
| Application Scenario | Public P2P VoIP | Open Global P2P |
| | Service Providers | VoIP Network |
+------------------------+----------------------+-------------------+
| Section in Draft | 4.1.1 | 4.1.2 |
| Number of Peers | hundreds | thousands |
| Number of Users | millions | millions |
| Overlay spans | no | yes |
| administrative domains | | |
| Multicast Available | no | no |
| P2P Client Support | yes | yes |
| Interaction with | yes | yes |
| CS-SIP | | |
| Non-stop Operation | yes | yes |
| Centralized Operations | yes | yes |
| and Management | | |
| Centralized ID Control | yes | no |
| Supports Anonymous | no | no |
| Users | | |
| Carrier-Class | yes | yes |
| Robustness | | |
| NATs within a single | yes | yes |
| overlay | | |
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
| DNS available | yes | yes |
| End-to-end SIP | yes | yes |
| Encryption | | |
+------------------------+----------------------+-------------------+
Public P2P VoIP Service Providers and Open Global P2P VoIP Network
Table 1
4.1.2. Open Global P2P VoIP Network
This is a global P2P VoIP network in which there is no central
authority such as a single service provider. Anyone can join and
leave the network freely and anyone can implement the software to
participate in the overlay network. In such a system, the protocols
used must be based on open standards. This P2P VoIP network
resembles the global Internet itself in that it has distributed
management and growth, enables anyone to reach anyone else in the
overlay network, and any device supporting the standard protocols can
be used.
Table 1 provides a high-level overview of this category.
4.1.3. Wide Area Networks of Consumer Electronics Devices
Instant messaging application software provides presence, text and
media messaging, and file transfer capabilities between online users.
As more and more multimedia consumer electronics devices such as
cameras, camcorders and televisions become network aware, instant
sharing of multimedia content such as photos and video clips between
family members and friends will be desirable. VoIP may not be needed
on some of these consumer electronics devices, however in other cases
such as gaming, voice communication between users may be highly
desirable. As consumer electronics providers may desire to provide
these capabilities without investing in extensive server
capabilities, a global P2P network supporting presence is an
important infrastructure component for this application scenario.
Table 2 provides a high-level overview of this category.
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Application Scenario | Wide Area Networks of Consumer |
| | Electronics Devices |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Section in Draft | 4.1.3 |
| Number of Peers | thousands |
| Number of Users | millions |
| Overlay spans | yes |
| administrative domains | |
| Multicast Available | no |
| P2P Client Support | yes |
| Interaction with CS-SIP | no |
| Non-stop Operation | no |
| Centralized Operations and | maybe |
| Management | |
| Centralized ID Control | maybe |
| Supports Anonymous Users | no |
| Carrier-Class Robustness | no |
| NATs within a single | yes |
| overlay | |
| DNS available | yes |
| End-to-end SIP Encryption | no |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Wide Area Networks of Consumer Electronics Devices
Table 2
4.1.4. Multimedia content sharing via Application Layer Multicasting
(Content Providers or Ad Hoc)
IP-layer multicasting is not generally available beyond the boundary
of single IP subnet. Application layer multicasting has become a
plausible alternative to IP-layer multicasting. In application layer
multicasting, the nodes that need to receive the content from the
same source form a distribution network, typically of a tree-like
topology, and relay the received content to other nodes in the
distribution network. This technique can be used to multicasting
video or audio stream to a number of nodes distributed over the
Internet (or across multiple IP subnets).
Note that this application scenario covers two types of deployments -
large-scale commercial audio or video distribution/broadcasting
services such as Internet radio or TV services ("Content Provider")
or to ad-hoc video sharing among a group of friends ("Ad Hoc").
Table 3 provides a high-level overview of this category.
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
+----------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+
| Application | Multimedia content | Multimedia content |
| Scenario | sharing via Application | sharing via |
| | Layer Multicasting | Application Layer |
| | (Content Providers) | Multicasting (Ad Hoc) |
+----------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+
| Section in | 4.1.4 | 4.1.4 |
| Draft | | |
| Number of | hundreds | hundreds |
| Peers | | |
| Number of | thousands | thousands |
| Users | | |
| Overlay spans | yes | yes |
| administrative | | |
| domains | | |
| Multicast | application multicast | application multicast |
| Available | | |
| P2P Client | yes | yes |
| Support | | |
| Interaction | no | no |
| with CS-SIP | | |
| Non-stop | yes | no |
| Operation | | |
| Centralized | yes | no |
| Operations and | | |
| Management | | |
| Centralized ID | yes | no |
| Control | | |
| Supports | no | no |
| Anonymous | | |
| Users | | |
| Carrier-Class | yes | no |
| Robustness | | |
| NATs within a | yes | yes |
| single overlay | | |
| DNS available | yes | yes |
| End-to-end SIP | yes | no |
| Encryption | | |
+----------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+
Multimedia content sharing via Application Layer Multicasting
(Content Provider and Ad Hoc)
Table 3
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
4.2. Environments with Limited Connectivity to the Internet or
Infrastructure
When there is no physical network available for stable deployment of
client server SIP or an instant deployment of real-time communication
systems is required, the P2P approach may be the only feasible
solution. Examples of such environment are isolated wireless ad-hoc
networks with no connection to the Internet or ad-hoc networks with
limited connectivity to the Internet in situations like outdoor
public events, emergencies, and battlefields. Any type of manual
configuration is difficult to achieve because technical support is
not readily available in such environment. In some cases,
connectivity to the global Internet may be available, but be very
expensive, of limited capacity, or unstable, such as satellite
connections. In such cases, it is preferable to localize
communications as much as possible, reducing dependency on any
infrastructure in the global Internet.
Table 4 provides a high-level overview of this category.
+----------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------------+
| Application | Ad-Hoc | Extending | Impeded | Local Area |
| Scenario | and | the Reach | Access | Networks of |
| | Ephemeral | of Mobile | | Consumer |
| | Groups | Devices | | Electronics |
| | | | | Devices |
+----------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------------+
| Section in | 4.2.1 | 4.2.2 | 4.2.3 | 4.2.4 |
| Draft | | | | |
| Number of | tens | hundreds | hundreds | tens |
| Peers | | | | |
| Number of | tens | hundreds | hundreds | tens |
| Users | | | | |
| Spans | no | no | yes | no |
| administrative | | | | |
| domains | | | | |
| Multicast | link | link | no | link |
| Available | multicast | multicast | | multicast |
| P2P Client | no | no | no | no |
| Support | | | | |
| Interaction | no | no | no | no |
| with CS-SIP | | | | |
| Non-stop | no | no | no | no |
| Operation | | | | |
| Centralized | no | no | no | no |
| Operations and | | | | |
| Management | | | | |
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
| Centralized ID | no | no | no | no |
| Control | | | | |
| Supports | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Anonymous | | | | |
| Users | | | | |
| Carrier-Class | no | no | no | no |
| Robustness | | | | |
| NATs within a | no | no | yes | no |
| single overlay | | | | |
| DNS available | no | no | yes | yes |
| End-to-end SIP | no | no | yes | no |
| Encryption | | | | |
+----------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------------+
Environments with Limited Connectivity to the Internet or
Infrastructure
Table 4
4.2.1. Ad-Hoc and Ephemeral Groups
Groups of individuals meeting together have need for collaborative
communications systems that are ephemeral in nature, have minimum
(ideally zero) configuration, and do not depend on connectivity to
the Internet. These scenarios require an arbitrary number of users
to connect communications devices. These can include cases where
Internet connectivity due to remote location, inability to pay for
connectivity, or following a natural disaster where service is
interrupted.
Example: A group gets together for a meeting, but there is no
Internet connectivity. If the users establish a wireless ad hoc
network or have a base station, all users may connect and establish
chat sessions using an IM protocol with no need for server
configuration.
Example: Following a disaster, the local fire department arrives.
Each fire fighter has a wireless handset, and one or more trucks have
wireless base stations. When a nearby locality sends additional
rescuers, their wireless handsets should be able to instantly join
the communications network and communicate, without the need for
central configuration.
4.2.2. Extending the Reach of Mobile Devices
[anchor9]
A network of mobile devices can relay traffic between themselves to
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
reach a base station, even if the base station is out of reach of
that device.
Example: A user has a handset for communication that cannot reach a
base station. Some other user is within range of both that user and
a base station. This intermediate user can serve as a relay for the
caller who is out of range. A system might make this feature
optional for standard communication and mandatory for E911.
4.2.3. Impeded Access
Certain groups may have their ability to communicate impeded. These
users should be able to communicate without the need to connect to
any centralized servers, which may be blocked by providers upstream
of the user. A fully decentralized system cannot be completely
disconnected without removing connectivity at the basic Internet
level.
Example: A user wishes to use an IP telephony service to communicate
PC to PC with a friend, but the ports commonly used by these
services, or the servers used for authentication, are blocked by the
ISP because the ISP also offers communications systems and have a
vested interest in denying access to external communications systems.
Example: A user with an Internet enabled PDA devices wishes to
connect with colleagues, but traditional services are blocked to
ensure that SMS or voice minutes are used (at additional cost)
instead.
4.2.4. Local Area Networks of Consumer Electronics Devices
In addition to consumer devices sharing information with other users
across the Internet, having devices that can locate each other and
exchange information within the local LAN of a particular user may
also be an attractive application. In this case, devices could use
P2PSIP to locate multimedia resources available on other devices and
stream the information between the devices.
Example: A user wishes to share content among consumer electronics
devices within a home network.
4.3. Managed, Private Network Environments
A corporate network or a school campus network is an example of the
managed, private network environment. Most likely client server SIP
can be used and managed for real-time communication applications in
these environments. However, in certain scenarios, P2PSIP may be
used instead or as a complementary means, to achieve various goals
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
such as cost and management overhead reduction, scalability, and
system robustness.
Table 5 provides a high-level overview of this category.
+------------------+---------------+---------------+----------------+
| Application | Serverless or | P2P for | Failover for |
| Scenario | Small Scale | Redundant SIP | Centralized |
| | IP-PBX | Servers | Systems |
+------------------+---------------+---------------+----------------+
| Section in Draft | 4.3.1 | 4.3.2 | 4.3.3 |
| Number of Peers | hundreds | hundreds | tens |
| Number of Users | hundreds | hundreds | tens |
| Spans | no | no | no |
| administrative | | | |
| domains | | | |
| Multicast | IP multicast | IP multicast | IP multicast |
| Available | | | |
| P2P Client | no | no | no |
| Support | | | |
| Interaction with | yes | no | yes |
| CS-SIP | | | |
| Non-stop | yes | yes | yes |
| Operation | | | |
| Centralized | maybe | yes | yes |
| Operations and | | | |
| Management | | | |
| Centralized ID | self-cert? | yes | yes |
| Control | | | |
| Supports | no | no | no |
| Anonymous Users | | | |
| Carrier-Class | no | yes | yes |
| Robustness | | | |
| NATs within a | yes | no | no |
| single overlay | | | |
| DNS available | no | yes | yes |
| End-to-end SIP | no | no | no |
| Encryption | | | |
+------------------+---------------+---------------+----------------+
Managed, Private Network Environments
Table 5
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
4.3.1. Serverless or Small Scale IP-PBX
Many small enterprises have a need for integrated communications
systems. These systems have slightly different requirements than
more traditional IP PBXs. For small enterprises, there may be no
administrator for these systems, requiring the systems to be
essentially self-configuring and/or self-organizing. Additional
endpoints should be able to be added with no requirements for
configuration on central devices.
These systems should offer the feature sets similar to those of
client server type PBX systems. Connectivity to the PSTN is an
important feature for these systems. In addition, they may support
features such as call transfer, voice mail, and possibly even other
communications modes such as instant messaging or media features such
as video or conference services. There are already commercial
products of this type.
Example: Small organizations without centralized IT
4.3.2. P2P for Redundant SIP Proxies
Service providers may wish to connect a farm of proxies together in a
transparent way, passing resources (user registrations or other call
information) between themselves with as little configuration or
traffic as possible. Ideally, the redundancy and exchange of
information should require a minimum of configuration between the
devices. P2P architecture between the proxies allows proxy farms to
be organized and operated in this way. With this approach, it is
easy to add more proxies with minimal service disruptions and
increases the robustness of the system.
Example: a SIP service provider may wish to scale SIP proxies by
using a P2PSIP overlay that provides RFC 3263 [RFC3263] request
routing services, instead of using either front-end load balancing
devices or making the structure of the proxy farm visible outside the
proxy farm itself.
4.3.3. Failover for Centralized Systems
A traditional centralized SIP server, such as used in an IP-PBX,
forms a single point of failure of an otherwise fault-independent
network. Relying on P2PSIP as a backup to the centralized server
allows the communications system to continue functioning normally in
the event of planned or unplanned service interruptions of the
central IP-PBX. When combined with a low-configuration P2PSIP PBX,
this can provide a simple, standalone communications system for the
developing world that allows local communication even when Internet
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
connectivity is severed.
Example: A small company has a central IP-PBX. When that device
experiences a failure, the handsets are able to transparently
continue operation for the 24 hours it takes to obtain a replacement
switch.
Example: A village in the developing world has connectivity that is
limited by weather (microwave connection) or is solar powered. It
would be desirable for intra-village communication to continue to
function in the absence of Internet connectivity.
5. Changes from draft-bryan-p2psip-usecases-00
This draft builds on the analysis done for an earlier draft,
draft-bryan-p2psip-usecases-00, now expired. For ease of reference,
Table 6 shows the mapping of use cases described in
draft-bryan-p2psip-usecases-00 onto the application scenarios
described in this document.
+---------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
| Use Case | Section in | Application Scenario |
| | Use Cases | |
| | Draft | |
+---------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
| Public P2P VoIP Service | 3.1.1 | (no change) |
| Providers | | |
| Open Global P2P VoIP | 3.1.2 | (no change) |
| Network | | |
| Presence Using Multimedia | 3.1.3 | Split into (Content |
| Consumer Electronics | | Provider) and (Ad Hoc) |
| Devices | | scenarios |
| Multimedia content | 3.1.4 | (no change) |
| sharing via Application | | |
| Layer Multicasting | | |
| Impeded Access | 3.2.1 | (no change) |
| Anonymous Communications | 3.2.2 | Became an attribute of |
| | | other scenarios |
| Security Conscious Small | 3.2.3 | Became an attribute of |
| Organizations | | other scenarios |
| Ad-Hoc and Ephemeral | 3.3.1 | (no change) |
| Groups | | |
| Emergency First Responder | 3.3.2 | Merged with Ad-Hoc and |
| Networks | | Ephemeral Groups |
| Extending the Reach of | 3.3.3 | (no change) |
| Mobile Devices | | |
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
| Deployments in the | 3.3.4 | Merged with Failover |
| Developing World | | |
| Serverless or Small Scale | 3.4.1 | (no change) |
| IP-PBX | | |
| P2P for Redundant SIP | 3.4.2 | (no change) |
| Servers | | |
| Failover for Centralized | 3.4.3 | (no change) |
| Systems | | |
+---------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
Changes from draft-bryan-p2psip-usecases-00
Table 6
6. Acknowledgments
The following persons have contributed application scenarios or ideas
to this document:
Cullen Jennings, Philip Matthews, Henry Sinnreich, Adam Roach, Robert
Sparks, Kundan Singh, Henning Schulzrinne, K. Kishore Dhara, and
Salman A. Baset.
7. Security Considerations
The security requirements of the various application scenarios vary
tremendously. They should be discussed in more detail in this
document.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA Considerations.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.willis-p2psip-concepts]
Willis, D., "Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer
SIP", draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-04 (work in progress),
March 2007.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263,
June 2002.
9.2. Informative References
[skypestudy]
Baset, S. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Analysis of the Skype
Peer-to-Peer Internet Telephony Protocol", Technical
Report, Department of Computer Science, Columbia
University 0309-04, September 2004.
Editorial Comments
[anchor9] Spencer has misgivings about "Extending the Reach of
Mobile Devices", based on (1) relaying at the link layer
or at the network layer would make more sense, and would
work for devices that do not support P2PSIP, and (2)
although small networks might work well enough when peers
simply forward a request "around the overlay", in larger
networks the problem space morphs from forwarding traffic
in *the* direction of a destination to routing traffic in
the *best* direction to the destination - a much harder
problem.
Authors' Addresses
David A. Bryan
SIPeerior Technologies, Inc.
3000 Easter Circle
Williamsburg, VA 23188
USA
Phone: +1 757 565 0101
Email: dbryan@sipeerior.com
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
Eunsoo Shim
Locus Telecommunications, Inc.
2200 Fletcher Ave. 6th FL
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
USA
Email: eunsoo@locus.net
Bruce B. Lowekamp
SIPeerior; William & Mary
3000 Easter Circle
Williamsburg, VA 23188
USA
Phone: +1 757 565 0101
Email: lowekamp@sipeerior.com
Spencer Dawkins (editor)
Huawei Technologies (USA)
1547 Rivercrest Blvd.
Allen, TX 75002
USA
Phone: +1 214 755 3870
Email: spencer@mcsr-labs.org
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Application Scenarios November 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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).
Bryan, et al. Expires May 10, 2008 [Page 19]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 16:01:48 |