One document matched: draft-pierce-tsvwg-assured-service-arch-01.txt
Differences from draft-pierce-tsvwg-assured-service-arch-00.txt
Internet Engineering Task Force Mike Pierce
Internet Draft Artel
draft-pierce-tsvwg-assured-service-arch-01.txt Don Choi
October 20, 2004 DISA
Expires April 20, 2005
Architecture for Assured Service Capabilities in Voice over IP
draft-pierce-tsvwg-assured-service-arch-01.txt
Status of this memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author certifies 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 RFC 3668.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright
Copyright (C) Internet Society 2004. All rights reserved.
Reproduction or translation of the complete document, but not of
extracts, including this notice, is freely permitted.
Abstract
Assured Service refers to the set of capabilities used to ensure
that mission critical communications are setup and remain connected.
This memo describes the architecture required to meet the
requirements detailed in [Pierce1].
Mike Pierce Expires April 20, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet Draft Architecture for Assured Service October 20, 2004
Table of Contents
0. History......................................................2
1. Introduction.................................................2
2. Architectures................................................3
2.1. End-to-end Architecture.................................3
2.2. Service Provider Network Architecture...................4
3. Required Architecture........................................4
4. Required Procedures..........................................6
4.1. Authentication..........................................6
4.2. Function of Proxy.......................................6
4.3. Function of the Edge Router.............................7
4.4. Function of User Agent..................................7
4.5. Session Control.........................................8
5. Security Considerations......................................8
6. References...................................................8
6.1. Normative References....................................8
6.2. Informative References..................................8
0. History
(To be removed before publication.)
This draft was originally submitted under SIPPING and then IEPREP.
This revision is being submitted under TSVWG since IEPREP is
essentially inactive.
(SIPPING)
-00: Original
(IEPREP)
-00: Added Access Router to architecture required to support Assured
Service.
-01 Updated references
-02 Updated references and minor editorial changes.
(TSVWG)
-00 Updated references and added references to CAC.
-01 Changed "Access Router" to "Edge Router".
Added description of "call-stateful" proxy.
Added references.
1. Introduction
The requirements for Assured Service are given in [Pierce1]. Many
other drafts and RFCs have addressed the assumed architecture for
the provision of SIP-based services. A lot of consideration has been
Mike Pierce Expires April 20, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet Draft Architecture for Assured Service October 20, 2004
given to continued reliance on the pure peer-to-peer model on which
the Internet (and especially HTTP) has been based vs. migration to
centralized control models in which dedicated proxies perform
specific functions for the control of telephony services. This would
include, possibly, full knowledge of the state of each call.
While there is an wide-spread desire expressed in various IETF
discussions to maintain (or return to) the pure peer-to-peer
architecture, there has been increasing admissions in various drafts
that centralized control or intelligent "middleboxes" are required
in many cases. Some examples are:
1. RFC 3261 defines the notion of a "Call Stateful proxy", which
"retains state for a dialog from the initiating INVITE to the
terminating BYE request", i.e., for the duration of a call. However,
no use of this state has been included in the current version of SIP
[RFC3261].
2. Draft-ietf-sipping-cc-framework-02 included the concept of a
"central control" signaling model.
3. The abstract for draft-ietf-sipping-service-examples-06
recognizes that "some [services] require the assistance of a SIP
Proxy", and it states that the flows shown assume "a network of
proxies, registrars, PSTN gateways, and other SIP servers".
4. RFC 3325 for identity and privacy is based fully on use of a
network of trusted SIP servers. It states that "these mechanisms
provide no means by which end users can securely share identity
information end-to-end without a trusted service provider."
2. Architectures
Various discussions and memos have identified two potential network
architectures for the provision of SIP services. They are briefly:
2.1. End-to-end Architecture
All service provision is between and under control of the calling
and called party, referred to as "User Agent Client (UAC)" and "User
Agent Server (UAS)", respectively. This terminology of "client" and
"server" are based on the HTTP model from which this model is
derived and have no real significance to this model. Either end can
initiate a transaction. There is no device in-between which provides
service support, only routers for packets. Other required devices
(address translation, etc.) which the calling user must access are
simply additional UAS's.
There is no "Service Provider" for the voice service, only a
provider of the packet switched infrastructure.
Mike Pierce Expires April 20, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet Draft Architecture for Assured Service October 20, 2004
2.2. Service Provider Network Architecture
A Service Provider maintains and controls network elements which
play an active role in the provision of services to end users. These
network elements may be referred to as back-to-back user agents
(B2BUA), proxies, servers, middleboxes, or intermediaries but they
all have the common characteristic of being provided by a trusted
Service Provider and they provide an important logical function
between the end users. These elements terminate SIP messages,
perform service control, and send new or modified SIP messages to
other network elements or to the other user. The result is that no
SIP message goes directly from one UA to the other (unless
specifically authorized by the control element).
The "Service Provider" may be the same company or entity which
provides part or all of the packet switched infrastructure.
3. Required Architecture
In order to provide the security and feature control required for
Assured Service as defined in [Pierce1], it is necessary to utilize
the Service Provider Network Architecture in which proxies are used
to support call origination and termination for each user involved
in the service. The architecture is the "trapezoid" described in SIP
[RFC3261] as follows (figure actually copied from RFC 3263):
........................... .............................
. . . .
. +-------+ . . +-------+ .
. | | . . | | .
. | Proxy |---------- | Proxy | .
. | 1 | . . | 2 | .
. | | . . | | .
. / +-------+ . . +-------+ \ .
. / . . \ .
. / . . \ .
. / . . \ .
. / . . \ .
. / . . \ .
. / . . \ .
. / . . \ .
. +-------+ . . +-------+ .
. | | . . | | .
. | | . . | | .
. | UA 1 | . . | UA 2 | .
. | | . . | | .
. +-------+ . . +-------+ .
. Domain A . . Domain B .
........................... .............................
Interfaces:
(1) Originating UA 1 to Proxy 1: Authentication and all SIP messages
Mike Pierce Expires April 20, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet Draft Architecture for Assured Service October 20, 2004
to/from UA 1
(2) Proxy 1 to Proxy 2 (and to other devices such as policy
servers): SIP messages and policy actions
(3) Proxy 2 to terminating UA 2: Authentication and all SIP messages
to/from U 2
(4) Originating UA 1 to terminating UA 2: Voice packets, no
signaling messages
However, the above architecture requires the addition of another
component to provide control of the user's data packets (voice) in
the Assured Service case. This is important since the packets
themselves need to be marked for preferential treatment, including
the ability to get preferential treatment" over the packet transfer
of another user.
There must be an edge router, as described in [RFC 2998] and RFC
[3313], generally at the boundary between the local network and the
core network. This may be between the Ethernet LAN and the IP
"cloud" or it may be between the locally controlled IP network and
the global IP network. In any case, its function is to regulate the
transport of priority marked packets into the core.
The following figure depicts this architecture:
............................ ............................
. . . .
. +-------+ . . +-------+ .
. | | . (2) . | | .
. | Proxy |---------------------- | Proxy | .
. | 1 | . . | 2 | .
. | | . . | | .
. +-------+ . . +-------+ .
. / \ . . / \ .
. (1) / \ (1a) . . (3a) / \ (3) .
. / \ . . / \ .
. / \ . . / \ .
. +-------+ +----+ . . +----+ +-------+ .
. | | (4a) | ER | . (4b) . | ER | (4c) | | .
. | UA 1 |------>| 1 |-------------->| 2 |------>| UA 2 | .
. | | | | . . | | | | .
. +-------+ +----+ . . +----+ +-------+ .
. Domain A . . Domain B .
............................ ............................
Interfaces:
(1) Originating UA 1 to Proxy 1: Authentication and all SIP
messages to/from UA 1
(1a and 3a) Proxy to ER: instructions to allow voice packet
transport
(2) Proxy 1 to Proxy 2 (and to other devices such as policy
servers): SIP messages and policy actions
(3) Proxy 2 to terminating UA 2: Authentication and all SIP
Mike Pierce Expires April 20, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet Draft Architecture for Assured Service October 20, 2004
messages to/from U 2
(4a) Originating UA 1 to ER 1: attempted voice packets
(4b) ER 1 to ER 2: authorized voice packets
(4c) ER 2 to UA 2: authorized voice packets
4. Required Procedures
4.1. Authentication
Each UA which might use the Assured Service capability must
authenticate with a designated proxy before any service activation
is attempted. Normally, this would be at the time the device is
powered on, connected to the network, or is initialized, or it might
be done at pre-determined time intervals. Whether or not this
authentication requires a user interaction (human entry of a
password, retina scan, etc.) is not important and depends on the
application. Such an authentication may be very time consuming, with
password verification and policy data-base look-ups. After this
authentication, this proxy must handle all session establishments,
both to and from this UA.
This authentication function may be performed when the user attempts
the first session setup, for example, when an individual is allowed
to use a common device by first "logging on" with their identity and
password. In fact, this is still an "authentication" function
performed before the session setup is attempted. However, in this
case, it must be understood that there may be an additional delay
due to the authentication process before a call can be placed.
This authentication process is not unique to the provision of the
Assured Service capability. It is also required for many other
services which are to be provided by the service provider's proxy
based on pre-established authorizations.
4.2. Function of Proxy
Besides the processing of the authentication, each proxy is
responsible for a number of functions important to the provision of
Assured Service (as well as other services) and the handling of
interactions, where required, between different services. This
includes:
- maintaining state of all existing sessions which exist on all UAs
under its control (both originating and terminating proxies). The
proxy is fully "call-stateful" where "state" in this case includes
the identity of the endpoints in the session, the priority of the
session, and the addresses required to send further messages up-
and down-stream in the session, that is, any information which
might be needed for further processing of the session.
- maintaining knowledge of other services being used by the UA which
might need to be taken into consideration when applying the
Assured Service capabilities (both originating and terminating
Mike Pierce Expires April 20, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet Draft Architecture for Assured Service October 20, 2004
proxies).
- verifying that the originating UA is allowed to establish the
session at the precedence level requested (originating proxy).
- performing a Call Admission Control function of deciding whether
or not a new call (and the resulting packet flow) can be setup
based on knowledge of the current load and the allowable load
(originating proxy).
- establish permission at the edge router for it to handle the
precedence marked packets from the UA (both originating and
terminating proxies).
- performing the timing function to control the diversion service
(terminating proxy).
- deciding when to preempt the end user and sending the appropriate
preempt messages to the other party (both originating and
terminating proxies).
- maintaining records of the use of the service, whether for
accounting or auditing purposes (both originating and terminating
proxies).
4.3. Function of the Edge Router
The edge router serves the functions of ingress router and egress
router referred to in various RFCs. "Edge Router" is described in
RFCs [2998], [3313], and [3521].
The edge router, under control of the proxy, decides which packets
are to be transported between networks or domains. If authorization
has not been granted for the transport of a specific packet flow at
the precedence level indicated in the packets, the edge router must
discard the packets.
Additionally, there may be cases in which a currently transported
packet stream must be stopped, for example, to support preemption.
Since the Assured Service may not be able to rely on the UA to stop
the flow, it may be necessary for the edge router, again under
control of the proxy, to stop transporting a particular flow.
An edge router may also be capable of recognizing traffic overload
and notifying other network entities of this situation. It may also
contain procedures to provide short-term relief from such overload
conditions, such as providing preferential treatment of some packets
based on their markings (for example, as defined in DiffServ).
4.4. Function of User Agent
The User Agent may be either the end user's telephone device or a
gateway to a non-IP network. It is responsible for initiating or
terminating a call setup request with the responsible proxy. In
Mike Pierce Expires April 20, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet Draft Architecture for Assured Service October 20, 2004
addition, it is responsible for sending voice packets to and
receiving them from the appropriate edge router.
4.5. Session Control
Session establishment and release should follow the same message
sequence as defined in SIP and its extensions for non-Assured
Service calls. There should not be any additional messages to setup
an Assured Service call. The only additional requirements are the
inclusion of:
- the priority level as defined in [Resource] in the INVITE
- security related information in every message which might consist
of an authentication header (AH) using cryptographic techniques to
allow the receiving end (user or proxy) to validate the
authenticity of the message before acting on it. (This requirement
is not unique to Assured Service, but is also required to provide
security for other capabilities.)
If preemption of sessions (calls) is supported, there may be unique
messages to control this function.
5. Security Considerations
This memo mostly deals with the architecture required to support the
necessary security. While it does not attempt to define the actual
security mechanisms used for authentication and authorization, it
establishes the service architecture required as a basis for
security.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
None
6.2. Informative References
[RFC2998] RFC 2998, "A Framework for Integrated Services Operation
over Diffserv Networks", Y. Bernet, et al, November 2000.
[RFC3261] RFC 3261, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", J.
Rosenberg, et al, June 2002.
[RFC3263] RFC 3263, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP
Servers", J. Rosenberg, et al, June 2002.
[RFC3313] RFC 3313, "Private SIP Extensions for Media
Authorization", W. Marshall, May 2002.
[RFC3323] RFC 3323 "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", J. Peterson, November 2002.
Mike Pierce Expires April 20, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet Draft Architecture for Assured Service October 20, 2004
[RFC3325] RFC 3325, "SIP extensions for Network-asserted Caller
Identity and Privacy within Trusted Networks", C. Jennings, et al,
February 2002.
[RFC3521] RFC 3521, "Framework for Session Set-up with Media
Authorization", L-N. Hamer, et al, April 2003.
[Pierce1] draft-pierce-tsvwg-assured-service-req-01, "Requirements
for Assured Service Capabilities in Voice over IP", Mike Pierce, et
al, October 2004.
[Resource] draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-04, "SIP Communications
Resource Priority Header", Henning Schulzrinne and James Polk,
August 2004.
Authors' Addresses
Michael Pierce
Artel
1893 Preston White Drive
Reston, VA 20191
Phone: +1 410.817.4795
Email: pierce1m@ncr.disa.mil
Don Choi
DISA
5600 Columbia Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-2717
Phone: +1 703.681.2312
Email: choid@ncr.disa.mil
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.
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
Mike Pierce Expires April 20, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet Draft Architecture for Assured Service October 20, 2004
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.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
Mike Pierce Expires April 20, 2005 [Page 10]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 06:49:25 |