One document matched: draft-ietf-sip-outbound-06.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-sip-outbound-05.txt
Network Working Group C. Jennings, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Updates: 3261,3327 (if approved) R. Mahy, Ed.
Expires: May 26, 2007 Plantronics
November 22, 2006
Managing Client Initiated Connections in the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)
draft-ietf-sip-outbound-06
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 26, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) allows proxy servers to
initiate TCP connections and send asynchronous UDP datagrams to User
Agents in order to deliver requests. However, many practical
considerations, such as the existence of firewalls and Network
Address Translators (NATs), prevent servers from connecting to User
Agents in this way. This specification defines behaviors for User
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
Agents, registrars and proxy servers that allow requests to be
delivered on existing connections established by the User Agent. It
also defines keep alive behaviors needed to keep NAT bindings open
and specifies the usage of multiple connections.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Summary of Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Single Registrar and UA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 Multiple Connections from a User Agent . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4 Edge Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5 Keepalive Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. User Agent Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1 Instance ID Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2 Initial Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.1 Registration by Other Instances . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Sending Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4 Detecting Flow Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.1 Keepalive with TCP KEEPALIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.2 Keepalive with STUN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.3 Flow Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Edge Proxy Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1 Processing Register Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2 Generating Flow Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3 Forwarding Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4 Edge Proxy Keepalive Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Registrar Mechanisms: Processing REGISTER Requests . . . . . . 20
7. Authoritative Proxy Mechansims: Forwarding Requests . . . . . 22
8. STUN Keepalive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.1 Explicit Probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.2 Use with Sigcomp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Example Message Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. Definition of 430 Flow Failed response code . . . . . . . . 30
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.1 Contact Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.2 SIP/SIPS URI Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12.3 SIP Option Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12.4 Response Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12.5 Media Feature Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
15. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
15.1 Changes from 05 Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
15.2 Changes from 04 Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
15.3 Changes from 03 Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
15.4 Changes from 02 Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
15.5 Changes from 01 Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
15.6 Changes from 00 Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A. Default Flow Registration Backoff Times . . . . . . . . . . . 37
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
17.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
17.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 41
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
1. Introduction
There are many environments for SIP [RFC3261] deployments in which
the User Agent (UA) can form a connection to a Registrar or Proxy but
in which connections in the reverse direction to the UA are not
possible. This can happen for several reasons. Connections to the
UA can be blocked by a firewall device between the UA and the proxy
or registrar, which will only allow new connections in the direction
of the UA to the Proxy. Similarly there a NAT could be present,
which is only capable of allowing new connections from the private
address side to the public side. This specification allows SIP
registration when the UA is behind such a firewall or NAT.
Most IP phones and personal computers get their network
configurations dynamically via a protocol such as DHCP (Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol). These systems typically do not have a
useful name in the Domain Name System (DNS), and they almost never
have a long-term, stable DNS name that is appropriate for use in the
subjectAltName of a certificate, as required by [RFC3261]. However,
these systems can still act as a TLS client and form connections to a
proxy or registrar which authenticates with a server certificate.
The server can authenticate the UA using a shared secret in a digest
challenge over that TLS connection.
The key idea of this specification is that when a UA sends a REGISTER
request, the proxy can later use this same network "flow"--whether
this is a bidirectional stream of UDP datagrams, a TCP connection, or
an analogous concept of another transport protocol--to forward any
requests that need to go to this UA. For a UA to receive incoming
requests, the UA has to connect to a server. Since the server can't
connect to the UA, the UA has to make sure that a flow is always
active. This requires the UA to detect when a flow fails. Since
such detection takes time and leaves a window of opportunity for
missed incoming requests, this mechanism allows the UA to use
multiple flows to the proxy or registrar. This specification also
defines how SIP implements the STUN keepalive usage. The keepalive
mechanism is used to keep NAT bindings fresh, and to allow the UA to
detect when a flow has failed.
2. Conventions and Terminology
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].
2.1 Definitions
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
Authoritative Proxy: A proxy that handles non-REGISTER requests for a
specific Address-of-Record (AOR), performs the logical Location
Server lookup described in RFC 3261, and forwards those requests
to specific Contact URIs.
Edge Proxy: An Edge Proxy is any proxy that is located topologically
between the registering User Agent and the Authoritative Proxy.
Flow: A Flow is a network protocol layer (layer 4) association
between two hosts that is represented by the network address and
port number of both ends and by the protocol. For TCP, a flow is
equivalent to a TCP connection. For UDP a flow is a bidirectional
stream of datagrams between a single pair of IP addresses and
ports of both peers. With TCP, a flow often has a one to one
correspondence with a single file descriptor in the operating
system.
reg-id: This refers to the value of a new header field parameter
value for the Contact header field. When a UA registers multiple
times, each simultaneous registration gets a unique reg-id value.
instance-id: This specification uses the word instance-id to refer to
the value of the "sip.instance" media feature tag in the Contact
header field. This is a Uniform Resource Name (URN) that uniquely
identifies this specific UA instance.
outbound-proxy-set A set of SIP URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers)
that represents each of the outbound proxies (often Edge Proxies)
with which the UA will attempt to maintain a direct flow. The
first URI in the set is often referred to as the primary outbound
proxy and the second as the secondary outbound proxy. There is no
difference between any of the URIs in this set, nor does the
primary/secondary terminology imply that one is preferred over the
other.
3. Overview
Several scenarios in which this technique is useful are discussed
below, including the simple co-located registrar and proxy, a User
Agent desiring multiple connections to a resource (for redundancy,
for example), and a system that uses Edge Proxies.
3.1 Summary of Mechanism
The overall approach is fairly simple. Each UA has a unique
instance-id that stays the same for this UA even if the UA reboots or
is power cycled. Each UA can register multiple times over different
connections for the same SIP Address of Record (AOR) to achieve high
reliability. Each registration includes the instance-id for the UA
and a reg-id label that is different for each flow. The registrar
can use the instance-id to recognize that two different registrations
both reach the same UA. The registrar can use the reg-id label to
recognize that a UA is registering after a reboot or a network
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
failure.
When a proxy goes to route a message to a UA for which it has a
binding, it can use any one of the flows on which a successful
registration has been completed. A failure on a particular flow can
be tried again on an alternate flow. Proxies can determine which
flows go to the same UA by comparing the instance-id. Proxies can
tell that a flow replaces a previously abandoned flow by looking at
the reg-id.
UAs use the STUN (Simple Traversal of UDP through NATs) protocol as
the keepalive mechanism to keep their flow to the proxy or registrar
alive.
3.2 Single Registrar and UA
In the topology shown below, a single server is acting as both a
registrar and proxy.
+-----------+
| Registrar |
| Proxy |
+-----+-----+
|
|
+----+--+
| User |
| Agent |
+-------+
User Agents which form only a single flow continue to register
normally but include the instance-id as described in Section 4.1.
The UA can also include a reg-id parameter which is used to allow the
registrar to detect and avoid keeping invalid contacts when a UA
reboots or reconnects after its old connection has failed for some
reason.
For clarity, here is an example. Bob's UA creates a new TCP flow to
the registrar and sends the following REGISTER request.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 192.0.2.1;branch=z9hG4bK-bad0ce-11-1036
Max-Forwards: 70
From: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>;tag=d879h76
To: Bob <sip:bob@example.com>
Call-ID: 8921348ju72je840.204
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Supported: path
Contact: <sip:line1@192.168.0.2>; reg-id=1;
;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:00000000-0000-0000-0000-000A95A0E128>"
Content-Length: 0
The registrar challenges this registration to authenticate Bob. When
the registrar adds an entry for this contact under the AOR for Bob,
the registrar also keeps track of the connection over which it
received this registration.
The registrar saves the instance-id
("urn:uuid:00000000-0000-0000-0000-000A95A0E128") and reg-id ("1")
along with the rest of the Contact header field. If the instance-id
and reg-id are the same as a previous registration for the same AOR,
the registrar replaces the old Contact URI and flow information.
This allows a UA that has rebooted to replace its previous
registration for each flow with minimal impact on overall system
load.
When Alice sends a request to Bob, his authoritative proxy selects
the target set. The proxy forwards the request to elements in the
target set based on the proxy's policy. The proxy looks at the
target set and uses the instance-id to understand if two targets both
end up routing to the same UA. When the proxy goes to forward a
request to a given target, it looks and finds the flows over which it
received the registration. The proxy then forwards the request on
that flow instead of trying to form a new flow to that contact. This
allows the proxy to forward a request to a particular contact over
the same flow that the UA used to register this AOR. If the proxy
has multiple flows that all go to this UA, it can choose any one of
registration bindings for this AOR that has the same instance-id as
the selected UA.
3.3 Multiple Connections from a User Agent
There are various ways to deploy SIP to build a reliable and scalable
system. This section discusses one such design that is possible with
the mechanisms in this specification. Other designs are also
possible.
In the example system below, the logical outbound proxy/registrar for
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
the domain is running on two hosts that share the appropriate state
and can both provide registrar and outbound proxy functionality for
the domain. The UA will form connections to two of the physical
hosts that can perform the outbound proxy/registrar function for the
domain. Reliability is achieved by having the UA form two TCP
connections to the domain.
Scalability is achieved by using DNS SRV to load balance the primary
connection across a set of machines that can service the primary
connection, and also using DNS SRV to load balance across a separate
set of machines that can service the secondary connection. The
deployment here requires that DNS is configured with one entry that
resolves to all the primary hosts and another entry that resolves to
all the secondary hosts. While this introduces additional DNS
configuration, the approach works and requires no addition SIP
extensions.
Note: Approaches which select multiple connections from a single
DNS SRV set were also considered, but cannot prevent two
connections from accidentally resolving to the same host. The
approach in this document does not prevent future extensions, such
as the SIP UA configuration framework [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-
framework], from adding other ways for a User Agent to discover
its outbound-proxy-set.
+-------------------+
| Domain |
| Logical Proxy/Reg |
| |
|+-----+ +-----+|
||Host1| |Host2||
|+-----+ +-----+|
+---\------------/--+
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
+------+
| User |
| Agent|
+------+
The UA is configured with multiple outbound proxy registration URIs.
These URIs are configured into the UA through whatever the normal
mechanism is to configure the proxy or registrar address in the UA.
If the AOR is Alice@example.com, the outbound-proxy-set might look
something like "sip:primary.example.com;keepalive=stun" and "sip:
secondary.example.com;keepalive=stun". The "keepalive=stun" tag
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
indicates that a SIP server supports STUN and SIP multiplexed over
the same flow, as described later in this specification. Note that
each URI in the outbound-proxy-set could resolve to several different
physical hosts. The administrative domain that created these URIs
should ensure that the two URIs resolve to separate hosts. These
URIs are handled according to normal SIP processing rules, so
mechanisms like SRV can be used to do load balancing across a proxy
farm.
The domain also needs to ensure that a request for the UA sent to
host1 or host2 is then sent across the appropriate flow to the UA.
The domain might choose to use the Path header approach (as described
in the next section) to store this internal routing information on
host1 or host2.
When a single server fails, all the UAs that have a flow through it
will detect a flow failure and try to reconnect. This can cause
large loads on the server. When large numbers of hosts reconnect
nearly simultaneously, this is referred to as the avalanche restart
problem, and is further discussed in Section 4.4.3. The multiple
flows to many servers help reduce the load caused by the avalanche
restart. If a UA has multiple flows, and one of the servers fails,
the UA delays the specified time before trying to form a new
connection to replace the flow to the server that failed. By
spreading out the time used for all the UAs to reconnect to a server,
the load on the server farm is reduced.
When used in this fashion to achieve high reliability, the operator
will need to configure DNS such that the various URIs in the outbound
proxy set do not resolve to the same host.
Another motivation for maintaining multiple flows between the UA and
its registrar is related to multihomed UAs. Such UAs can benefit
from multiple connections from different interfaces to protect
against the failure of an individual access link.
3.4 Edge Proxies
Some SIP deployments use edge proxies such that the UA sends the
REGISTER to an Edge Proxy that then forwards the REGISTER to the
Registrar. The Edge Proxy includes a Path header [RFC3327] so that
when the registrar later forwards a request to this UA, the request
is routed through the Edge Proxy. There could be a NAT or firewall
between the UA and the Edge Proxy.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
+---------+
|Registrar|
|Proxy |
+---------+
/ \
/ \
/ \
+-----+ +-----+
|Edge1| |Edge2|
+-----+ +-----+
\ /
\ /
----------------------------NAT/FW
\ /
\ /
+------+
|User |
|Agent |
+------+
These systems can use effectively the same mechanism as described in
the previous sections but need to use the Path header. When the Edge
Proxy receives a registration, it needs to create an identifier value
that is unique to this flow (and not a subsequent flow with the same
addresses) and put this identifier in the Path header URI. This
identifier has two purposes. First, it allows the Edge Proxy to map
future requests back to the correct flow. Second, because the
identifier will only be returned if the user authentication with the
registrar succeeds, it allows the Edge Proxy to indirectly check the
user's authentication information via the registrar. The identifier
SHOULD be placed in the user portion of a loose route in the Path
header. If the registration succeeds, the Edge Proxy needs to map
future requests that are routed to the identifier value from the Path
header, to the associated flow.
The term Edge Proxy is often used to refer to deployments where the
Edge Proxy is in the same administrative domain as the Registrar.
However, in this specification we use the term to refer to any proxy
between the UA and the Registrar. For example the Edge Proxy may be
inside an enterprise that requires its use and the registrar could be
from a service provider with no relationship to the enterprise.
Regardless if they are in the same administrative domain, this
specification requires that Registrars and Edge proxies support the
Path header mechanism in RFC 3327 [RFC3327].
3.5 Keepalive Technique
A keepalive mechanism needs to detect failure of a connection and
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
changes to the NAT public mapping, as well as keeping any NAT
bindings refreshed. This specification describes using STUN
[I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis] over the same flow as the SIP traffic to
perform the keepalive. For connection-oriented transports (e.g. TCP
and TLS over TCP), the UAC MAY use TCP keepalives to detect flow
failure if the UAC can send these keepalives and detect a keepalive
failure according to the time frames described in Section 4.4.
Note: when TCP is being used, it's natural to think of using TCP
KEEPALIVE. Unfortunately, many operating systems and programming
environments do not allow the keepalive time to be set on a per-
connection basis. Thus, applications may not be able to set an
appropriate time.
For connection-less transports, a flow definition could change
because a NAT device in the network path reboots and the resulting
public IP address or port mapping for the UA changes. To detect
this, requests are sent over the same flow that is being used for the
SIP traffic. The proxy or registrar acts as a STUN server on the SIP
signaling port.
Note: The STUN mechanism is very robust and allows the detection
of a changed IP address. Many other options were considered, but
the SIP Working Group selected the STUN-based approach, since it
works over any transport. Approaches using SIP requests were
abandoned because to achieve the required performance, the server
needs to deviate from the SIP specification in significant ways.
This would result in many undesirable and non-deterministic
behaviors in some environments.
Another approach considered to detect a changed flow was using
OPTIONS messages and the rport parameter. Although the OPTIONS
approach has the advantage of being backwards compatible, it also
significantly increases the load on the proxy or registrar server.
Related to this idea was an idea of creating a new SIP PING method
that was like OPTIONS but faster. It would be critical that this
PING method did not violate the processing requirements of a
proxies and UAS so it was never clear how it would be
significantly faster than OPTIONS given it would still have to
obey things like checking the Proxy-Require header. After
considerable consideration the working group came to some
consensus that the STUN approach was a better solution that these
alternative designs.
When the UA detects that a flow has failed or that the flow
definition has changed, the UA needs to re-register and will use the
back-off mechanism described in Section 4 to provide congestion
relief when a large number of agents simultaneously reboot.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
4. User Agent Mechanisms
4.1 Instance ID Creation
Each UA MUST have an Instance Identifier URN that uniquely identifies
the device. Usage of a URN provides a persistent and unique name for
the UA instance. It also provides an easy way to guarantee
uniqueness within the AOR. This URN MUST be persistent across power
cycles of the device. The Instance ID MUST NOT change as the device
moves from one network to another.
A UA SHOULD use a UUID URN [RFC4122] as its instance-id. The UUID
URN allows for non-centralized computation of a URN based on time,
unique names (such as a MAC address), or a random number generator.
A device like a soft-phone, when first installed, can generate a
UUID [RFC4122] and then save this in persistent storage for all
future use. For a device such as a hard phone, which will only
ever have a single SIP UA present, the UUID can include the MAC
address and be generated at any time because it is guaranteed that
no other UUID is being generated at the same time on that physical
device. This means the value of the time component of the UUID
can be arbitrarily selected to be any time less than the time when
the device was manufactured. A time of 0 (as shown in the example
in Section 3.2) is perfectly legal as long as the device knows no
other UUIDs were generated at this time.
If a URN scheme other than UUID is used, the URN MUST be selected
such that the instance can be certain that no other instance
registering against the same AOR would choose the same URN value. An
example of a URN that would not meet the requirements of this
specification is the national bibliographic number [RFC3188]. Since
there is no clear relationship between a SIP UA instance and a URN in
this namespace, there is no way a selection of a value can be
performed that guarantees that another UA instance doesn't choose the
same value.
The UA SHOULD include a "sip.instance" media feature tag as a UA
characteristic [RFC3840] in requests and responses. As described in
[RFC3840], this media feature tag will be encoded in the Contact
header field as the "+sip.instance" Contact header field parameter.
The value of this parameter MUST be a URN [RFC2141]. One case where
a UA may not want to include the URN in the sip.instance media
feature tag is when it is making an anonymous request or some other
privacy concern requires that the UA not reveal its identity.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
RFC 3840 [RFC3840] defines equality rules for callee capabilities
parameters, and according to that specification, the
"sip.instance" media feature tag will be compared by case-
sensitive string comparison. This means that the URN will be
encapsulated by angle brackets ("<" and ">") when it is placed
within the quoted string value of the +sip.instance Contact header
field parameter. The case-sensitive matching rules apply only to
the generic usages defined in RFC 3840 [RFC3840] and in the caller
preferences specification [RFC3841]. When the instance ID is used
in this specification, it is effectively "extracted" from the
value in the "sip.instance" media feature tag. Thus, equality
comparisons are performed using the rules for URN equality that
are specific to the scheme in the URN. If the element performing
the comparisons does not understand the URN scheme, it performs
the comparisons using the lexical equality rules defined in RFC
2141 [RFC2141]. Lexical equality could result in two URNs being
considered unequal when they are actually equal. In this specific
usage of URNs, the only element which provides the URN is the SIP
UA instance identified by that URN. As a result, the UA instance
SHOULD provide lexically equivalent URNs in each registration it
generates. This is likely to be normal behavior in any case;
clients are not likely to modify the value of the instance ID so
that it remains functionally equivalent yet lexigraphically
different from previous registrations.
4.2 Initial Registrations
At configuration time UAs obtain one or more SIP URIs representing
the default outbound-proxy-set. This specification assumes the set
is determined via any of a number of configuration mechanisms, and
future specifications can define additional mechanisms such as using
DNS to discover this set. How the UA is configured is outside the
scope of this specification. However, a UA MUST support sets with at
least two outbound proxy URIs and SHOULD support sets with up to four
URIs. For each outbound proxy URI in the set, the UA SHOULD send a
REGISTER in the normal way using this URI as the default outbound
proxy. Forming the route set for the request is outside the scope of
this document, but typically results in sending the REGISTER such
that the topmost Route header field contains a loose route to the
outbound proxy URI. Other issues related to outbound route
construction are discussed in [I-D.rosenberg-sip-route-construct].
Registration requests, other than those described in Section 4.2.1,
MUST include an instance-id media feature tag as specified in
Section 4.1.
These ordinary registration requests include a distinct reg-id
parameter to the Contact header field. Each one of these
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
registrations will form a new flow from the UA to the proxy. The
sequence of reg-id values does not have to be sequential but MUST be
exactly the same sequence of reg-id values each time the UA instance
power cycles or reboots so that the reg-id values will collide with
the previously used reg-id values. This is so the registrar can
replace the older registration.
The UAC can situationally decide whether to request outbound
behavior by including or omitting the 'reg-id' parameter. For
example, imagine the outbound-proxy-set contains two proxies in
different domains, EP1 and EP2. If an outbound-style registration
succeeded for a flow through EP1, the UA might decide to include
'outbound' in its option-tag when registering with EP2, in order
to insure consistency. Similarly, if the registration through EP1
did not support outbound, the UA might decide to omit the 'reg-id'
parameter when registering with EP2.
The UAC MUST indicate that it supports the Path header [RFC3327]
mechanism, by including the 'path' option-tag in a Supported header
field value in its REGISTER requests. Other than optionally
examining the Path vector in the response, this is all that is
required of the UAC to support Path.
The UAC MAY examine successful registrations for the presence of an
'outbound' option-tag in a Supported header field value. Presence of
this option-tag indicates that the registrar is compliant with this
specification, and that any edge proxies which need to partcipate are
also compliant.
Note that the UA needs to honor 503 (Service Unavailable) responses
to registrations as described in RFC 3261 and RFC 3263 [RFC3263]. In
particular, implementors should note that when receiving a 503
(Service Unavailable) response with a Retry-After header field, the
UA is expected to wait the indicated amount of time and retry the
registration. A Retry-After header field value of 0 is valid and
indicates the UA is expected to retry the REGISTER immediately.
Implementations need to ensure that when retrying the REGISTER, they
revisit the DNS resolution results such that the UA can select an
alternate host from the one chosen the previous time the URI was
resolved.
Use of outbound with UDP flows typically prevents messages larger
than 1300 bytes from being delivered using TCP as described in
Section 18.1.1 RFC 3261. Use of outbound in conjunction with UDP
flows in environments where requests are expected to be larger than
this size is therefore NOT RECOMMENDED.
Finally, re-registrations which merely refresh an existing valid
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
registration SHOULD be sent over the same flow as the original
registration.
4.2.1 Registration by Other Instances
A User Agent MUST NOT include a reg-id header parameter in the
Contact header field of a registration if the registering UA is not
the same instance as the UA referred to by the target Contact header
field. (This practice is occasionally used to install forwarding
policy into registrars.)
Note that a UAC also MUST NOT include an instance-id or reg-id
parameter in a request to unregister all Contacts (a single Contact
header field value with the value of "*").
4.3 Sending Requests
When a UA is about to send a request, it first performs normal
processing to select the next hop URI. The UA can use a variety of
techniques to compute the route set and accordingly the next hop URI.
Discussion of these techniques is outside the scope of this document
but could include mechanisms specified in RFC 3608 [RFC3608] (Service
Route) and [I-D.rosenberg-sip-route-construct].
The UA performs normal DNS resolution on the next hop URI (as
described in RFC 3263 [RFC3263]) to find a protocol, IP address, and
port. For non-TLS protocols, if the UA has an existing flow to this
IP address, and port with the correct protocol, then the UA MUST use
the existing connection. For TLS protocols, there MUST also be a
match between the host production in the next hop and one of the URIs
contained in the subjectAltName in the peer certificate. If the UA
cannot use one of the existing flows, then it SHOULD form a new flow
by sending a datagram or opening a new connection to the next hop, as
appropriate for the transport protocol.
Note that if the UA wants its flow to work through NATs or
firewalls it still needs to put the 'rport' parameter [RFC3581] in
its Via header field value, and send from the port it is prepared
to receive on. More general information about NAT traversal in
SIP is described in [I-D.ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios].
4.4 Detecting Flow Failure
The UA needs to detect when a specific flow fails. The UA actively
tries to detect failure by periodically sending keepalive messages
using one of the techniques described in Section 4.4.1 or
Section 4.4.2. If a flow has failed, the UA follows the procedures
in Section 4.2 to form a new flow to replace the failed one.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
The time between keepalive requests when using UDP-based transports
SHOULD be a random number between 24 and 29 seconds while for TCP-
based transports it SHOULD be a random number between 95 and 120
seconds. These times MAY be configurable. Issues such as battery
consumption might motivate longer keepalive intervals.
Note on selection of time values: For UDP, the upper bound of 29
seconds was selected so that multiple STUN packets could be sent
before 30 seconds based on information that many NATs have UDP
timeouts as low as 30 seconds. The 24 second lower bound was
selected so that after 10 minutes the jitter introduced by
different timers will make the keepalive requests unsynchronized
to evenly spread the load on the servers. For TCP, the 120
seconds upper bound was chosen based on the idea that for a good
user experience, failures normally will be detected in this amount
of time and a new connection set up. Operators that wish to
change the relationship between load on servers and the expected
time that a user might not receive inbound communications will
probably adjust this time. The 95 seconds lower bound was chosen
so that the jitter introduced will result in a relatively even
load on the servers after 30 minutes.
4.4.1 Keepalive with TCP KEEPALIVE
User Agents that are capable of generating per-connection TCP
keepalives with timer values consistent with those in this section
MAY use TCP keepalives instead of using STUN keepalives for TCP-based
flows.
4.4.2 Keepalive with STUN
User Agents that form flows, check if the configured URI they are
connecting to has a 'keepalive' URI parameter (defined in Section 12)
with the value of 'stun'. If the parameter is present and the UA is
not already performing keepalives using another supported mechanism,
the UA needs to periodically perform keepalive checks by sending STUN
[I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis] Binding Requests over the flow as
described in Section 8.
If the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS in the STUN Binding Response changes, the
UA MUST treat this event as a failure on the flow.
4.4.3 Flow Recovery
When a flow to a particular URI in the outbound-proxy-set fails, the
UA needs to form a new flow to replace the old flow and replace any
registrations that were previously sent over this flow. Each new
registration MUST have the same reg-id as the registration it
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
replaces. This is done in much the same way as forming a brand new
flow as described in Section 4.2; however, if there is a failure in
forming this flow, the UA needs to wait a certain amount of time
before retrying to form a flow to this particular next hop.
The amount of time to wait depends if the previous attempt at
establishing a flow was successful. For the purposes of this
section, a flow is considered successful if outbound registration
succeeded and keepalives have not timed out for min-regtime seconds
(default of 120 seconds) after a registration. For STUN-based
keepalives, this means three successful STUN transactions over UDP or
one successful STUN transaction over TCP. If a flow is established
and is alive after this amount of time, the number of consecutive
registration failures is set to zero. Each time a flow fails before
two minutes, the number of consecutive registration failures is
incremented by one. Note that a failure during the initial STUN
validation does not count against the number of consecutive
registration failures.
The number of seconds to wait is computed in the following way. If
all of the flows to every URI in the outbound proxy set have failed,
the base time is set to 30 seconds; otherwise, in the case where at
least one of the flows has not failed, the base time is set to 90
seconds. The wait time is computed by taking two raised to the power
of the number of consecutive registration failures for that URI, and
multiplying this by the base time, up to a maximum of 1800 seconds.
wait-time = min( max-time, (base-time * (2 ^ consecutive-failures)))
These times MAY be configurable in the UA. The four times are:
o max-time with a default of 1800 seconds
o base-time-all-fail with a default of 30 seconds
o base-time-not-failed with a default of 90 seconds
o min-regtime with a default of 120 seconds
For example, if the base time is 30 seconds, and there were three
failures, then the wait time is min(1800,30*(2^3)) or 240 seconds.
The delay time is computed by selecting a uniform random time between
50 and 100 percent of the wait time. The UA MUST wait for the value
of the delay time before trying another registration to form a new
flow for that URI.
To be explicitly clear on the boundary conditions: when the UA boots
it immediately tries to register. If this fails and no registration
on other flows succeed, the first retry happens somewhere between 30
and 60 seconds after the failure of the first registration request.
If the number of consecutive-failures is large enough that the
maximum of 1800 seconds is reached, the UA will keep trying
indefinitely with a random time of 15 to 30 minutes (900 to 1800
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
seconds) between each attempt.
5. Edge Proxy Mechanisms
5.1 Processing Register Requests
When an Edge Proxy receives a registration request with a reg-id
header parameter in the Contact header field, it needs to determine
if it (the edge proxy) will have to be visited for any subsequent
requests sent to the user agent identified in the Contact header
field, or not. If the Edge Proxy determines that this is the case,
it inserts its URI in a Path header field value as described in RFC
3327 [RFC3327]. If the Edge Proxy is the first SIP node after the
UAC, it either MUST store a "flow token"--containing information
about the flow from the previous hop--in its Path URI, or reject the
request. The flow token MAY be placed in the userpart of the URI.
In addition, the first node MUST include an 'ob' URI parameter in its
Path header field value. If the Edge Proxy is not the first SIP node
after the UAC it MUST NOT place an 'ob' URI parameter in a Path
header field value. The Edge Proxy can determine if it is the first
hop by examining the Via header field
5.2 Generating Flow Tokens
A trivial but impractical way to satisfy the flow token requirement
in Section 5.1 involves storing a mapping between an incrementing
counter and the connection information; however this would require
the Edge Proxy to keep an impractical amount of state. It is unclear
when this state could be removed and the approach would have problems
if the proxy crashed and lost the value of the counter. Two
stateless examples are provided below. A proxy can use any algorithm
it wants as long as the flow token is unique to a flow, the flow can
be recovered from the token, and the token can not be modified by
attackers.
Algorithm 1: The proxy generates a flow token for connection-oriented
transports by concatenating the file descriptor (or equivalent)
with the NTP time the connection was created, and base64 encoding
the result. This results in an identifier approximately 16 octets
long. The proxy generates a flow token for UDP by concatenating
the file descriptor and the remote IP address and port, then
base64 encoding the result. (No NTP time is needed for UDP.)
This algorithm MUST NOT be used unless all messages between the
Edge proxy and Registrar use a SIPS protected transport. If the
SIPS level of integrity protection is not available, an attacker
can hijack another user's calls.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
Algorithm 2: When the proxy boots it selects a 20-octet crypto random
key called K that only the Edge Proxy knows. A byte array, called
S, is formed that contains the following information about the
flow the request was received on: an enumeration indicating the
protocol, the local IP address and port, the remote IP address and
port. The HMAC of S is computed using the key K and the HMAC-
SHA1-80 algorithm, as defined in [RFC2104]. The concatenation of
the HMAC and S are base64 encoded, as defined in [RFC3548], and
used as the flow identifier. When using IPv4 addresses, this will
result in a 32-octet identifier.
5.3 Forwarding Requests
When an Edge Proxy receives a request, it applies normal routing
procedures with the following addition. If the Edge Proxy receives a
request where the edge proxy is the host in the topmost Route header
field value, and the Route header contains a flow token, the proxy
compares the flow in the flow token with the source of the request.
If these refer to the same flow, the Edge Proxy removes the Route
header and continues processing the request. Otherwise, if the top-
most Route header refers to the Edge Proxy and contains a valid flow
identifier token created by this proxy, the proxy MUST remove the
Route header and forward the request over the 'logical flow'
identified by the flow token, that is known to deliver data to the
specific target UA instance. For connection-oriented transports, if
the flow no longer exists the proxy SHOULD send a 430 (Flow Failed)
response to the request.
The advantage to a stateless approach to managing the flow
information is that there is no state on the Edge Proxy that
requires clean up or that has to be synchronized with the
registrar.
Proxies which used one of the two algorithms described in this
document to form a flow token follow the procedures below to
determine the correct flow.
Algorithm 1: The proxy base64 decodes the user part of the Route
header. For a TCP-based transport, if a connection specified by
the file descriptor is present and the creation time of the file
descriptor matches the creation time encoded in the Route header,
the proxy forwards the request over that connection. For a UDP-
based transport, the proxy forwards the request from the encoded
file descriptor to the source IP address and port.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
Algorithm 2: To decode the flow token, take the flow identifier in
the user portion of the URI and base64 decode it, then verify the
HMAC is correct by recomputing the HMAC and checking it matches.
If the HMAC is not correct, the proxy SHOULD send a 403
(Forbidden) response. If the HMAC is correct then the proxy
SHOULD forward the request on the flow that was specified by the
information in the flow identifier. If this flow no longer
exists, the proxy SHOULD send a 430 (Flow Failed) response to the
request.
Note that this specification needs mid-dialog requests to be routed
over the same flows as those stored in the Path vector from the
initial registration, but techniques to ensure that mid-dialog
requests are routed over an existing flow are not part of this
specification. However, an approach such as having the Edge Proxy
Record-Route with a flow token is one way to ensure that mid-dialog
requests are routed over the correct flow.
5.4 Edge Proxy Keepalive Handling
All edge proxies compliant with this specification MUST implement
support for the STUN NAT Keepalive usage on its SIP ports as
described in Section 8.
6. Registrar Mechanisms: Processing REGISTER Requests
This specification updates the definition of a binding in RFC 3261
[RFC3261] Section 10 and RFC 3327 [RFC3327] Section 5.3.
When no +sip.instance media feature parameter is present in a Contact
header field value in a REGISTER request, the corresponding binding
is still between an AOR and the URI from that Contact header field
value. When a +sip.instance media feature parameter is present in a
Contact header field value in a REGISTER request, the corresponding
binding is between an AOR and the combination of the instance-id
(from the +sip.instance media feature parameter) and the value of
reg-id parameter if it is present. For a binding with an
instance-id, the registrar still stores the Contact header field
value URI with the binding, but does not consider the Contact URI for
comparison purposes. A Contact header field value with an
instance-id but no reg-id is valid, but one with a reg-id but no
instance-id is not. If the registrar processes a Contact header
field value with a reg-id but no instance-id, it simply ignores the
reg-id parameter. The registrar MUST be prepared to receive,
simultaneously for the same AOR, some registrations that use
instance-id and reg-id and some registrations that do not.
Registrars which implement this specification MUST support the Path
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
header mechanism [RFC3327].
In addition to the normal information stored in the binding record,
some additional information needs to be stored for any registration
that contains an instance-id and a reg-id header parameter in the
Contact header field value. First the registrar examines the first
Path header field value, if any. If the Path header field exists and
the first URI does not have an 'ob' URI parameter, the registrar MUST
ignore the reg-id parameter and continue processing the request as if
it did not support this specification. Likewise if the REGISTER
request visited an edge proxy, but no Path header field values are
present, the registrar MUST ignore the reg-id parameter.
Specifically, the registrar MUST use RFC 3261 Contact binding rules,
and MUST NOT include the 'outbound' option-tag in its Supported
header field. The registrar can determine if it is the first hop by
examining the Via header field.
If the UAC has a direct flow with the registrar, the registrar MUST
store enough information to uniquely identify the network flow over
which the request arrived. For common operating systems with TCP,
this would typically just be the file descriptor and the time the
file descriptor was opened. For common operating systems with UDP
this would typically be the file descriptor for the local socket that
received the request, the local interface, and the IP address and
port number of the remote side that sent the request. The registrar
MAY store this information by adding itself to the Path header field
with an appropriate flow token.
The registrar MUST also store all the Contact header field
information including the reg-id and instance-id parameters and
SHOULD also store the time at which the binding was last updated. If
a Path header field is present, RFC 3327 [RFC3327] requires the
registrar to store this information as well. If the registrar
receives a re-registration, it MUST update any information that
uniquely identifies the network flow over which the request arrived
if that information has changed, and SHOULD update the time the
binding was last updated.
The Registrar MUST include the 'outbound' option-tag (defined in
Section (Section 12.1)) in a Supported header field value in its
responses to REGISTER requests for which it has performed outbound
processing. The Registrar MAY be configured with local policy to
reject any registrations that do not include the instance-id and
reg-id. Note that the requirements in this section applies to both
REGISTER requests received from an Edge Proxy as well as requests
received directly from the UAC.
To be compliant with this specification, registrars which can receive
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
SIP requests directly from a UAC without intervening edge proxies
MUST implement the STUN NAT Keepalive usage on its SIP ports as
described in Section 8.
7. Authoritative Proxy Mechansims: Forwarding Requests
When a proxy uses the location service to look up a registration
binding and then proxies a request to a particular contact, it
selects a contact to use normally, with a few additional rules:
o The proxy MUST NOT populate the target set with more than one
contact with the same AOR and instance-id at a time. If a request
for a particular AOR and instance-id fails with a 430 (Flow
Failed) response, the proxy SHOULD replace the failed branch with
another target (if one is available) with the same AOR and
instance-id, but a different reg-id.
o If the proxy receives a final response from a branch other than a
408 (Request Timeout) or a 430 (Flow Failed) response, the proxy
MUST NOT forward the same request to another target representing
the same AOR and instance-id. The targetted instance has already
provided its response.
The proxy uses normal forwarding rules looking at the next-hop target
of the message and the value of any stored Path header field vector
in the registration binding to decide how to forward the request and
populate the Route header in the request. If the proxy stored
information about the flow over which it received the REGISTER for
the binding, then the proxy MUST send the request over the same
'logical flow' saved with the binding that is known to deliver data
to the specific target UA instance.
Typically this means that for TCP, the request is sent on the same
TCP socket that received the REGISTER request. For UDP, the
request is sent from the same local IP address and port over which
the registration was received, to the same IP address and port
from which the REGISTER was received.
If a proxy or registrar receives information from the network that
indicates that no future messages will be delivered on a specific
flow, then the proxy MUST invalidate all the bindings in the target
set that use that flow (regardless of AOR). Examples of this are a
TCP socket closing or receiving a destination unreachable ICMP error
on a UDP flow. Similarly, if a proxy closes a file descriptor, it
MUST invalidate all the bindings in the target set with flows that
use that file descriptor.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
8. STUN Keepalive Processing
This section describes changes to the SIP transport layer that allow
SIP and the STUN [I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis] NAT Keepalive usage to
be mixed over the same flow. The STUN messages are used to verify
connectivity is still available over a flow and to provide periodic
keepalives. Note that these STUN keepalives are always sent to the
next SIP hop. STUN messages are not delivered end-to-end.
The only STUN messages required by this usage are Binding Requests,
Binding Responses, and Error Responses. The UAC sends Binding
Requests over the same UDP flow, TCP connection, or TLS channel used
for sending SIP messages. These Binding Requests do not require any
STUN attributes. The UAS responds to a valid Binding Request with a
Binding Response which MUST include the XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute.
After a successful STUN response is received over TCP or TLS over
TCP, the underlying TCP connection is left in the active state.
If a server compliant to this section receives SIP requests on a
given interface and port, it MUST also provide a limited version of a
STUN server on the same interface and port as described in Section
12.3 of [I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis]. When STUN messages are sent
with a SIP over TLS over TCP flow, the STUN messages are sent inside
the TLS-protected channel.
It is easy to distinguish STUN and SIP packets sent over UDP,
because the first octet of a STUN packet has a value of 0 or 1
while the first octet of a SIP message is never a 0 or 1. For TCP
or TLS over TCP flows, determining if the first octet of the next
message in a stream is SIP or STUN is still straightforward. As
with any stream-based protocol, implementations need to be preared
to receive STUN messages which cross a stream buffer boundary, and
SIP and STUN messages which share the same stream buffer.
Because sending and receiving binary STUN data on the same ports used
for SIP is a significant and non-backwards compatible change to RFC
3261, this section requires a number of checks before sending STUN
messages to a SIP node. If a SIP node sends STUN requests (for
example due to misconfiguration) despite these warnings, the node
could be blacklisted for UDP traffic, or cause its TCP server to
loose framing over its connection. For each target node (as
determined by IP address, address family, and port number), the
sender needs to determine if that destination is validated to support
STUN, that it does not support STUN, or that it needs to be
validated.
When a URI is created that refers to a SIP node that supports STUN as
described in this section, the 'keepalive' URI parameter, as defined
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
in Section 12 SHOULD be added to the URI, with a value of 'stun'.
This allows a UA to inspect the URI to decide if it should attempt to
send STUN requests to this location. For example, an edge proxy
could insert this parameter into its Path URI so that the registering
UA can discover the edge proxy supports STUN keepalives.
A SIP node MUST NOT send STUN requests over a flow unless it has an
explicit indication that the target next hop SIP server claims to
support STUN. For example, automatic or manual configuration of an
outbound-proxy-set which contains the keepalive=stun parameter is
considered sufficient explicit indication. Note that UACs MUST NOT
use an ambiguous configuration option such as "Work through NATs?" or
"Do Keepalives?" to imply next hop STUN support. A SIP node MAY also
probe the next hop using a SIP OPTIONS request to check for support
of the 'sip-stun' option tag in a Supported header field.
Futhermore, even with explicit indication of next hop STUN support, a
SIP node needs to validate support for STUN the first time it sends
traffic to a specific unvalidated target destination. If an explicit
probe indicates support for the 'sip-stun' option-tag, that
destination is validated for STUN support. If an explicit probe does
not indicate support for the 'sip-stun' option-tag, the target
destination does not support STUN request, and the UAC MUST NOT send
further STUN requests to this destination. A SIP node MAY send one
STUN request and its retransmissions to an unvalidated destination.
If a STUN request ever succeeds to a destination, that destination is
thereafter validated for STUN support. If this initial STUN request
does not result in a STUN response, the SIP node MUST NOT send
additional STUN requests over this flow, unless and until a next-hop
probe later validates the destination. In addition, the SIP node
SHOULD remember unvalidated destination nodes that have been used
within one hour and SHOULD NOT send additional STUN messages to any
of these destinations. Note that until STUN support has been
verified, an initial STUN failure over UDP is not considered a flow
failure. For UDP flows, an unvalidated flow can still be reused for
SIP traffic, however for unvalidated TCP or TLS over TCP flows, the
connection over which STUN requests were sent MUST be closed.
Typically, a SIP node first sends a SIP request and waits to
receive a final response (other than a 408 response) over a flow
to a new target destination, before sending any STUN messages.
When scheduled for the next NAT refresh, the SIP node sends a STUN
request to the target. If none of the STUN requests succeed
(result in a STUN success response), and the UAC has not already
done so, the UAC sends an OPTIONS request to the next hop to
verify support for the 'sip-stun' option-tag.
Once a destination is validated to support STUN messages, failure of
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
a STUN request (including its retransmissions) is considered a
failure of the underlying flow. For SIP over UDP flows, if the XOR-
MAPPED-ADDRESS returned over the flow changes, this indicates that
the underlying connectivity has changed, and is considered a flow
failure. A 408 response to a next-hop OPTIONS probe is also
considered a flow failure.
8.1 Explicit Probes
This section defines a new SIP option-tag called 'sip-stun'.
Advertising this option-tag indicates that the server can receive SIP
messages and STUN messages as part of the NAT Keepalive usage on the
same port. Clients that want to probe a SIP server to determine
support for STUN, can send an OPTIONS request to the next hop by
setting the Max-Forwards header field to 0. The OPTIONS response
will contain a Supported header field with a list of the server's
supported option-tags.
A UAC SHOULD NOT include the 'sip-stun' option-tag in a Proxy-
Require header. This is because a request with this header will
fail in some topologies where the first proxy support sip-stun,
but a subsequent proxy does not. Note that RFC 3261 does not
allow proxies to remove option-tags from a Proxy-Require header
field.
8.2 Use with Sigcomp
When STUN is used together with SigComp [RFC3320] compressed SIP
messages over the same flow, how the STUN messages are sent depends
on the transport protocol. For UDP flows, the STUN messages are
simply sent uncompressed, "outside" of SigComp. This is supported by
multiplexing STUN messages with SigComp messages by checking the two
topmost bits of the message. These bits are always one for SigComp,
or zero for STUN.
All SigComp messages contain a prefix (the five most-significant
bits of the first byte are set to one) that does not occur in
UTF-8 encoded text messages [RFC-2279], so for applications which
use this encoding (or ASCII encoding) it is possible to multiplex
uncompressed application messages and SigComp messages on the same
UDP port.
The most significant two bits of every STUN message are both
zeroes. This, combined with the magic cookie, aids in
differentiating STUN packets from other protocols when STUN is
multiplexed with other protocols on the same port.
For TCP-based flows, SigComp requires that all messages are processed
by the SigComp compressor to facilitate framing. For these
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
transports, STUN messages are sent encapsulated in the SigComp "well-
known shim header" as described in Section 11 of [I-D.ietf-rohc-
sigcomp-impl-guide].
Because the bytecodes expressed in the well-known shim header do
not store any state, correlation of such SigComp requests to a
compartment is not necessary. To avoid ambiguity, we add the
following requirement: any SigComp state that might result from a
message that, once decompressed, turns out to be a STUN message,
MUST be discarded.
9. Example Message Flow
The following call flow shows a basic registration and an incoming
call. At some point, the flow to the Primary proxy is lost. An
incoming INVITE tries to reach the Callee through the Primary flow,
but receives an ICMP Unreachable message. The Caller retries using
the Secondary Edge Proxy, which uses a separate flow. Later, after
the Primary reboots, The Callee discovers the flow failure and
reestablishes a new flow to the Primary.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
[-----example.com domain -------------------]
Caller Secondary Primary Callee
| | | (1) REGISTER |
| | |<-----------------|
| | |(2) 200 OK |
| | |----------------->|
| | | (3) REGISTER |
| |<------------------------------------|
| |(4) 200 OK | |
| |------------------------------------>|
| | | |
| | CRASH X |
|(5) INVITE | | |
|----------------------------------->| |
|(6) ICMP Unreachable | |
|<-----------------------------------| |
|(7) INVITE | | |
|---------------->| | |
| |(8) INVITE | |
| |------------------------------------>|
| |(9) 200 OK | |
| |<------------------------------------|
|(10) 200 OK | | |
|<----------------| | |
|(11) ACK | | |
|---------------->| | |
| |(12) ACK | |
| |------------------------------------>|
| | | |
| | REBOOT | |
| | |(13) REGISTER |
| | |<-----------------|
| | |(14) 200 OK |
| | |----------------->|
| | | |
|(15) BYE | | |
|---------------->| | |
| | (16) BYE | |
| |------------------------------------>|
| | | (17) 200 OK |
| |<------------------------------------|
| (18) 200 OK | | |
|<----------------| | |
| | | |
This call flow assumes that the Callee has been configured with a
proxy set that consists of "sip:pri.example.com;lr;keepalive=stun"
and "sip:sec.example.com;lr;keepalive=stun". The Callee REGISTER in
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
message (1) looks like:
REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.1;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
Max-Forwards: 70
From: Callee <sip:callee@example.com>;tag=7F94778B653B
To: Callee <sip:callee@example.com>
Call-ID: 16CB75F21C70
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Supported: path
Route: <sip:pri.example.com;lr;keepalive=stun>
Contact: <sip:callee@192.0.2.1>
;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:0C67446E-F1A1-11D9-94D3-000A95A0E128>"
;reg-id=1
Content-Length: 0
In the message, note that the Route is set and the Contact header
field value contains the instance-id and reg-id. The response to the
REGISTER in message (2) would look like:
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.1;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
From: Callee <sip:callee@example.com>;tag=7F94778B653B
To: Callee <sip:callee@example.com>;tag=6AF99445E44A
Call-ID: 16CB75F21C70
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Supported: outbound
Contact: <sip:callee@192.0.2.1>
;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:0C67446E-F1A1-11D9-94D3-000A95A0E128>"
;reg-id=1
;expires=3600
Content-Length: 0
The second registration in message 3 and 4 are similar other than the
Call-ID has changed, the reg-id is 2, and the route is set to the
secondary instead of the primary. They look like:
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
REGISTER sip:example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.1;branch=z9hG4bKnqr9bym
Max-Forwards: 70
From: Callee <sip:callee@example.com>;tag=755285EABDE2
To: Callee <sip:callee@example.com>
Call-ID: E05133BD26DD
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Supported: path
Route: <sip:sec.example.com;lr;keepalive=stun>
Contact: <sip:callee@192.0.2.1>
;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:0C67446E-F1A1-11D9-94D3-000A95A0E128>"
;reg-id=2
Content-Length: 0
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.1;branch=z9hG4bKnqr9bym
From: Callee <sip:callee@example.com>;tag=755285EABDE2
To: Callee <sip:callee@example.com>;tag=49A9AD0B3F6A
Call-ID: E05133BD26DD
Supported: outbound
CSeq: 1 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:callee@192.0.2.1>
;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:0C67446E-F1A1-11D9-94D3-000A95A0E128>"
;reg-id=1
;expires=3600
Contact: <sip:callee@192.0.2.1>
;+sip.instance="<urn:uuid:0C67446E-F1A1-11D9-94D3-000A95A0E128>"
;reg-id=2
;expires=3600
Content-Length: 0
The messages in the call flow are very normal. The only interesting
thing to note is that the INVITE in message 8 contains a Record-Route
header for the Secondary proxy, with its flow token.
Record-Route:
<sip:PQPbqQE+Ynf+tzRPD27lU6uxkjQ8LLUG@sec.example.com;lr;user=flow>
The registrations in message 13 and 14 are the same as message 1 and
2 other than the Call-ID and tags have changed. Because these
messages will contain the same instance-id and reg-id as those in 1
and 2, this flow will partially supersede that for messages 1 and 2
and will be tried first by Primary.
10. Grammar
This specification defines new Contact header field parameters,
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
reg-id and +sip.instance. The grammar includes the definitions from
RFC 3261 [RFC3261] and includes the definition of uric from RFC 2396
[RFC2396].
Note: The "=/" syntax used in this ABNF indicates an extension of
the production on the left hand side.
The ABNF[RFC4234] is:
contact-params =/ c-p-reg / c-p-instance
c-p-reg = "reg-id" EQUAL 1*DIGIT ; 1 to 2**31
c-p-instance = "+sip.instance" EQUAL
LDQUOT "<" instance-val ">" RDQUOT
instance-val = *uric ; defined in RFC 2396
The value of the reg-id MUST NOT be 0 and MUST be less than 2**31.
11. Definition of 430 Flow Failed response code
This specification defines a new SIP response code '430 Flow Failed'.
This response code is used by an Edge Proxy to indicate to the
Authoritative Proxy that a specific flow to a UA instance has failed.
Other flows to the same instance could still succeed. The
Authoritative Proxy SHOULD attempt to forward to another target
(flow) with the same instance-id and AOR.
12. IANA Considerations
12.1 Contact Header Field
This specification defines a new Contact header field parameter
called reg-id in the "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values"
sub-registry as per the registry created by [RFC3968]. The required
information is:
Header Field Parameter Name Predefined Reference
Values
____________________________________________________________________
Contact reg-id Yes [RFC AAAA]
[NOTE TO RFC Editor: Please replace AAAA with
the RFC number of this specification.]
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
12.2 SIP/SIPS URI Parameters
This specification arguments the "SIP/SIPS URI Parameters" sub-
registry as per the registry created by [RFC3969]. The required
information is:
Parameter Name Predefined Values Reference
____________________________________________
keepalive stun [RFC AAAA]
ob [RFC AAAA]
[NOTE TO RFC Editor: Please replace AAAA with
the RFC number of this specification.]
12.3 SIP Option Tag
This specification registers two new SIP option tags, as per the
guidelines in Section 27.1 of RFC 3261.
Name: outbound
Description: This option-tag is used to identify Registrars which
support extensions for Client Initiated Connections. A Registrar
places this option-tag in a Supported header to communicate the
Registrar's support for this extension to the registering User
Agent.
Name: sip-stun
Description: This option-tag is used to identify SIP servers which
can receive STUN requests described in the STUN NAT Keepalive
usage on the same ports they use to receive SIP messages.
12.4 Response Code
This section registers a new SIP Response Code, as per the guidelines
in Section 27.1 of RFC 3261.
Code: 430
Default Reason Phrase: Flow Failed
Reference: This document
12.5 Media Feature Tag
This section registers a new media feature tag, per the procedures
defined in RFC 2506 [RFC2506]. The tag is placed into the sip tree,
which is defined in RFC 3840 [RFC3840].
Media feature tag name: sip.instance
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
ASN.1 Identifier: New assignment by IANA.
Summary of the media feature indicated by this tag: This feature tag
contains a string containing a URN that indicates a unique identifier
associated with the UA instance registering the Contact.
Values appropriate for use with this feature tag: String.
The feature tag is intended primarily for use in the following
applications, protocols, services, or negotiation mechanisms: This
feature tag is most useful in a communications application, for
describing the capabilities of a device, such as a phone or PDA.
Examples of typical use: Routing a call to a specific device.
Related standards or documents: RFC XXXX
[[Note to IANA: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
specification.]]
Security Considerations: This media feature tag can be used in ways
which affect application behaviors. For example, the SIP caller
preferences extension [RFC3841] allows for call routing decisions to
be based on the values of these parameters. Therefore, if an
attacker can modify the values of this tag, they might be able to
affect the behavior of applications. As a result, applications which
utilize this media feature tag SHOULD provide a means for ensuring
its integrity. Similarly, this feature tag should only be trusted as
valid when it comes from the user or user agent described by the tag.
As a result, protocols for conveying this feature tag SHOULD provide
a mechanism for guaranteeing authenticity.
13. Security Considerations
One of the key security concerns in this work is making sure that an
attacker cannot hijack the sessions of a valid user and cause all
calls destined to that user to be sent to the attacker.
The simple case is when there are no edge proxies. In this case, the
only time an entry can be added to the routing for a given AOR is
when the registration succeeds. SIP already protects against
attackers being able to successfully register, and this scheme relies
on that security. Some implementers have considered the idea of just
saving the instance-id without relating it to the AOR with which it
registered. This idea will not work because an attacker's UA can
impersonate a valid user's instance-id and hijack that user's calls.
The more complex case involves one or more edge proxies. When a UA
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
sends a REGISTER request through an Edge Proxy on to the registrar,
the Edge Proxy inserts a Path header field value. If the
registration is successfully authenticated, the registrar stores the
value of the Path header field. Later when the registrar forwards a
request destined for the UA, it copies the stored value of the Path
header field into the Route header field of the request and forwards
the request to the Edge Proxy.
The only time an Edge Proxy will route over a particular flow is when
it has received a Route header that has the flow identifier
information that it has created. An incoming request would have
gotten this information from the registrar. The registrar will only
save this information for a given AOR if the registration for the AOR
has been successful; and the registration will only be successful if
the UA can correctly authenticate. Even if an attacker has spoofed
some bad information in the Path header sent to the registrar, the
attacker will not be able to get the registrar to accept this
information for an AOR that does not belong to the attacker. The
registrar will not hand out this bad information to others, and
others will not be misled into contacting the attacker.
14. Requirements
This specification was developed to meet the following requirements:
1. Must be able to detect that a UA supports these mechanisms.
2. Support UAs behind NATs.
3. Support TLS to a UA without a stable DNS name or IP address.
4. Detect failure of a connection and be able to correct for this.
5. Support many UAs simultaneously rebooting.
6. Support a NAT rebooting or resetting.
7. Minimize initial startup load on a proxy.
8. Support architectures with edge proxies.
15. Changes
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this whole section.
15.1 Changes from 05 Version
Mention the relevance of the 'rport' parameter.
Change registrar verification so that only first-hop proxy and the
registrar need to support outbound. Other intermediaries in between
do not any more.
Relaxed flow-token language slightly. Instead of flow-token saving
specific UDP address/port tuples over which the request arrived, make
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
language fuzzy to save token which points to a 'logical flow' that is
known to deliver data to that specific UA instance.
Added comment that keepalive=stun could be added to Path.
Added comment that battery concerns could motivate longer TCP
keepalive intervals than the defaults.
Scrubbed document for avoidable lowercase mays, shoulds, and musts.
Added text about how Edge Proxies could determine they are the first
hop.
15.2 Changes from 04 Version
Moved STUN to a separate section. Reference this section from within
the relevant sections in the rest of the document.
Add language clarifying that UA MUST NOT send STUN without an
explicit indication the server supports STUN.
Add language describing that UA MUST stop sending STUN if it appears
the server does not support it.
Defined a 'sip-stun' option tag. UAs can optionally probe servers
for it with OPTIONS. Clarified that UAs SHOULD NOT put this in a
Proxy-Require. Explain that the first-hop MUST support this option-
tag.
Clarify that SIP/STUN in TLS is on the "inside". STUN used with
Sigcomp-compressed SIP is "outside" the compression layer for UDP,
but wrapped inside the well-known shim header for TCP-based
transports.
Clarify how to decide what a consecutive registration timer is. Flow
must be up for some time (default 120 seconds) otherwise previous
registration is not considered successful.
Change UAC MUST-->SHOULD register a flow for each member of outbound-
proxy-set.
Reworded registrar and proxy in some places (introduce the term
"Authoritative Proxy").
Loosened restrictions on always storing a complete Path vector back
to the registrar/authoritative proxy if a previous hop in the path
vector is reachable.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
Added comment about reregistration typically happening over same flow
as original registration.
Changed 410 Gone to new response code 430 Flow Failed. Was going to
change this to 480 Temporarily Unavailable. Unfortunately this would
mean that the authoritative proxy deletes all flows of phones who use
480 for Do Not Disturb. Oops!
Restored sanity by restoring text which explains that registrations
with the same reg-id replace the old registration.
Added text about the 'ob' parameter which is used in Path header
field URIs to make sure that the previous proxy that added a Path
understood outbound processing. The registrar doesn't include
Supported: outbound unless it could actually do outbound processing
(ex: any Path headers have to have the 'ob' parameter).
Added some text describing what a registration means when there is an
instance-id, but no reg-id.
15.3 Changes from 03 Version
Added non-normative text motivating STUN vs. SIP PING, OPTIONS, and
Double CRLF. Added discussion about why TCP Keepalives are not
always available.
Explained more clearly that outbound-proxy-set can be "configured"
using any current or future, manual or automatic configuration/
discovery mechanism.
Added a sentence which prevents an Edge Proxy from forwarding back
over the flow over which the request is received if the request
happens to contain a flow token for that flow. This was an
oversight.
Updated example message flow to show a failover example using a new
dialog-creating request instead of a mid-dialog request. The old
scenario was leftover from before the outbound/gruu reorganization.
Fixed tags, Call-IDs, and branch parameters in the example messages.
Made the ABNF use the "=/" production extension mechanism recommended
by Bill Fenner.
Added a table in an appendix expanding the default flow recovery
timers.
Incorporated numerous clarifications and rewordings for better
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
comprehension.
Fixed many typos and spelling misteaks.
15.4 Changes from 02 Version
Removed Double CRLF Keepalive
Changed ;sip-stun syntax to ;keepalive=stun
Fixed incorrect text about TCP keepalives.
15.5 Changes from 01 Version
Moved definition of instance-id from GRUU[I-D.ietf-sip-gruu] draft to
this draft.
Added tentative text about Double CRLF Keepalive
Removed pin-route stuff
Changed the name of "flow-id" to "reg-id"
Reorganized document flow
Described the use of STUN as a proper STUN usage
Added 'outbound' option-tag to detect if registrar supports outbound
15.6 Changes from 00 Version
Moved TCP keepalive to be STUN.
Allowed SUBSCRIBE to create flow mappings. Added pin-route option
tags to support this.
Added text about updating dialog state on each usage after a
connection failure.
16. Acknowledgments
Jonathan Rosenberg provided many comments and useful text. Dave Oran
came up with the idea of using the most recent registration first in
the proxy. Alan Hawrylyshen co-authored the draft that formed the
initial text of this specification. Additionally, many of the
concepts here originated at a connection reuse meeting at IETF 60
that included the authors, Jon Peterson, Jonathan Rosenberg, Alan
Hawrylyshen, and Paul Kyzivat. The TCP design team consisting of
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
Chris Boulton, Scott Lawrence, Rajnish Jain, Vijay K. Gurbani, and
Ganesh Jayadevan provided input and text. Nils Ohlmeier provided
many fixes and initial implementation experience. In addition,
thanks to the following folks for useful comments: Francois Audet,
Flemming Andreasen, Mike Hammer, Dan Wing, Srivatsa Srinivasan, Dale
Worely, Juha Heinanen, Eric Rescorla, Lyndsay Campbell, and Erkki
Koivusalo.
Appendix A. Default Flow Registration Backoff Times
The base-time used for the flow re-registration backoff times
described in Section 4.4.3 are configurable. If the base-time-all-
fail value is set to the default of 30 seconds and the base-time-not-
failed value is set to the default of 90 seconds, the following table
shows the resulting delay values.
+-------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| # of reg failures | all flows unusable | >1 non-failed flow |
+-------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| 0 | 0 secs | 0 secs |
| 1 | 30-60 secs | 90-180 secs |
| 2 | 1-2 mins | 3-6 mins |
| 3 | 2-4 mins | 6-12 mins |
| 4 | 4-8 mins | 12-24 mins |
| 5 | 8-16 mins | 15-30 mins |
| 6 or more | 15-30 mins | 15-30 mins |
+-------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
17. References
17.1 Normative References
[I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis]
Rosenberg, J., "Simple Traversal Underneath Network
Address Translators (NAT) (STUN)",
draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-05 (work in progress),
October 2006.
[I-D.ietf-rohc-sigcomp-impl-guide]
Surtees, A., "Implementer's Guide for SigComp",
draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-impl-guide-08 (work in progress),
October 2006.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
[RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396,
August 1998.
[RFC2506] Holtman, K., Mutz, A., and T. Hardie, "Media Feature Tag
Registration Procedure", BCP 31, RFC 2506, March 1999.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263,
June 2002.
[RFC3320] Price, R., Bormann, C., Christoffersson, J., Hannu, H.,
Liu, Z., and J. Rosenberg, "Signaling Compression
(SigComp)", RFC 3320, January 2003.
[RFC3327] Willis, D. and B. Hoeneisen, "Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Extension Header Field for Registering Non-Adjacent
Contacts", RFC 3327, December 2002.
[RFC3581] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Extension to the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Symmetric Response
Routing", RFC 3581, August 2003.
[RFC3840] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat,
"Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3840, August 2004.
[RFC3841] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat, "Caller
Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 3841, August 2004.
[RFC3968] Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority
(IANA) Header Field Parameter Registry for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 98, RFC 3968,
December 2004.
[RFC3969] Camarillo, G., "The Internet Assigned Number Authority
(IANA) Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Parameter
Registry for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
BCP 99, RFC 3969, December 2004.
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
July 2005.
[RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
17.2 Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sip-gruu]
Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User
Agent (UA) URIs (GRUU) in the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-gruu-11 (work in progress),
October 2006.
[I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework]
Petrie, D., "A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol
User Agent Profile Delivery",
draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-09 (work in progress),
October 2006.
[I-D.ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios]
Boulton, C., "Best Current Practices for NAT Traversal for
SIP", draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-05 (work in
progress), June 2006.
[I-D.rosenberg-sip-route-construct]
Rosenberg, J., "Construction of the Route Header Field in
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-rosenberg-sip-route-construct-02 (work in progress),
October 2006.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997.
[RFC3188] Hakala, J., "Using National Bibliography Numbers as
Uniform Resource Names", RFC 3188, October 2001.
[RFC3548] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 3548, July 2003.
[RFC3608] Willis, D. and B. Hoeneisen, "Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Extension Header Field for Service Route Discovery
During Registration", RFC 3608, October 2003.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
Authors' Addresses
Cullen Jennings (editor)
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
Mailstop SJC-21/2
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Phone: +1 408 902-3341
Email: fluffy@cisco.com
Rohan Mahy (editor)
Plantronics
345 Encincal St
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
USA
Email: rohan@ekabal.com
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Client Initiated Connections in SIP November 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Jennings & Mahy Expires May 26, 2007 [Page 41]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 07:48:17 |