GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6406

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Malas, Ed. Request for Comments: 6406 CableLabs Category: Informational J. Livingood, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721 Comcast

                                                         November 2011
Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect (SPEERMINT) Architecture

Abstract

 This document defines a peering architecture for the Session
 Initiation Protocol (SIP) and its functional components and
 interfaces.  It also describes the components and the steps necessary
 to establish a session between two SIP Service Provider (SSP) peering
 domains.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6406.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 1] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
 Contributions published or made publicly available before November
 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
 than English.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................3
 2. New Terminology .................................................3
    2.1. Session Border Controller (SBC) ............................3
    2.2. Carrier-of-Record ..........................................4
 3. Reference Architecture ..........................................4
 4. Procedures of Inter-Domain SSP Session Establishment ............6
 5. Relationships between Functions/Elements ........................7
 6. Recommended SSP Procedures ......................................7
    6.1. Originating or Indirect SSP Procedures .....................7
         6.1.1. The Lookup Function (LUF) ...........................8
                6.1.1.1. Target Address Analysis ....................8
                6.1.1.2. ENUM Lookup ................................8
         6.1.2. Location Routing Function (LRF) .....................9
                6.1.2.1. DNS Resolution .............................9
                6.1.2.2. Routing Table ..............................9
                6.1.2.3. LRF to LRF Routing ........................10
         6.1.3. The Signaling Path Border Element (SBE) ............10
                6.1.3.1. Establishing a Trusted Relationship .......10
                6.1.3.2. IPsec .....................................10
                6.1.3.3. Co-Location ...............................11
                6.1.3.4. Sending the SIP Request ...................11
    6.2. Target SSP Procedures .....................................11
         6.2.1. TLS ................................................11
         6.2.2. Receive SIP Requests ...............................11
    6.3. Data Path Border Element (DBE) ............................12
 7. Address Space Considerations ...................................12
 8. Acknowledgments ................................................12
 9. Security Considerations ........................................12
 10. Contributors ..................................................13
 11. References ....................................................14
    11.1. Normative References .....................................14
    11.2. Informative References ...................................15

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 2] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

1. Introduction

 This document defines a reference peering architecture for the
 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261], it's functional
 components and interfaces in the context of session peering for
 multimedia interconnects.  In this process, we define the peering
 reference architecture and its functional components, and peering
 interface functions from the perspective of a SIP Service Provider's
 (SSP's) [RFC5486] network.  Thus, it also describes the components
 and the steps necessary to establish a session between two SSP
 peering domains.
 An SSP may also be referred to as an Internet Telephony Service
 Provider (ITSP).  While the terms ITSP and SSP are frequently used
 interchangeably, this document and other subsequent SIP peering-
 related documents should use the term SSP.  SSP more accurately
 depicts the use of SIP as the underlying Layer 5 signaling protocol.
 This architecture enables the interconnection of two SSPs in Layer 5
 peering, as defined in the SIP-based session peering requirements
 [RFC6271].
 Layer 3 peering is outside the scope of this document.  Hence, the
 figures in this document do not show routers so that the focus is on
 Layer 5 protocol aspects.
 This document uses terminology defined in "Session Peering for
 Multimedia Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology" [RFC5486].  In
 addition to normative references included herein, readers may also
 find [RFC6405] informative.

2. New Terminology

 [RFC5486] is a key reference for the majority of the SPEERMINT-
 related terminology used in this document.  However, some additional
 new terms are used here as follows in this section.

2.1. Session Border Controller (SBC)

 A Session Border Controller (SBC) is referred to in Section 5.  An
 SBC can contain a Signaling Function (SF), Signaling Path Border
 Element (SBE) and Data Path Border Element (DBE), and may perform the
 Lookup Function (LUF) and Location Routing Function (LRF), as
 described in Section 3.  Whether the SBC performs one or more of
 these functions is, generally speaking, dependent upon how a SIP
 Service Provider (SSP) configures such a network element.  In
 addition, requirements for an SBC can be found in [RFC5853].

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 3] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

2.2. Carrier-of-Record

 A carrier-of-record, as used in Section 6.1.2.2, is defined in
 [RFC5067].  That document describes the term as referring to the
 entity having discretion over the domain and zone content and acting
 as the registrant for a telephone number, as represented in ENUM.
 This can be as follows:
 o  the service provider to which the E.164 number was allocated for
    end user assignment, whether by the National Regulatory Authority
    (NRA) or the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), for
    instance, a code under "International Networks" (+882) or
    "Universal Personal Telecommunications (UPT)" (+878), or
 o  if the number is ported, the service provider to which the number
    was ported, or
 o  where numbers are assigned directly to end users, the service
    provider that the end user number assignee has chosen to provide a
    Public Switched Telephone Network / Public Land Mobile Network
    (PSTN/PLMN) point-of-interconnect for the number.
 It is understood that the definition of "carrier-of-record" within a
 given jurisdiction is subject to modification by national
 authorities.

3. Reference Architecture

 The following figure depicts the architecture and logical functions
 that form peering between two SSPs.
 For further details on the elements and functions described in this
 figure, please refer to [RFC5486].  The following terms, which appear
 in Figure 1 and are documented in [RFC5486], are reproduced here for
 simplicity.
 o  Data Path Border Element (DBE): A data path border element (DBE)
    is located on the administrative border of a domain through which
    the media associated with an inter-domain session flows.
    Typically, it provides media-related functions such as deep packet
    inspection and modification, media relay, and firewall-traversal
    support.  The DBE may be controlled by the SBE.
 o  E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM): See [RFC6116].
 o  Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN): See [RFC1035].

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 4] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

 o  Location Routing Function (LRF): The Location Routing Function
    (LRF) determines, for the target domain of a given request, the
    location of the SF in that domain, and optionally develops other
    Session Establishment Data (SED) required to route the request to
    that domain.  An example of the LRF may be applied to either
    example in Section 4.3.3 of [RFC5486].  Once the ENUM response or
    SIP 302 redirect is received with the destination's SIP URI, the
    LRF must derive the destination peer's SF from the FQDN in the
    domain portion of the URI.  In some cases, some entity (usually a
    third party or federation) provides peering assistance to the
    Originating SSP by providing this function.  The assisting entity
    may provide information relating to direct (Section 4.2.1 of
    [RFC5486]) or indirect (Section 4.2.2 of [RFC5486]) peering as
    necessary.
 o  Lookup Function (LUF): The Lookup Function (LUF) determines, for a
    given request, the target domain to which the request should be
    routed.  An example of an LUF is an ENUM [4] look-up or a SIP
    INVITE request to a SIP proxy providing redirect responses for
    peers.  In some cases, some entity (usually a third party or
    federation) provides peering assistance to the Originating SSP by
    providing this function.  The assisting entity may provide
    information relating to direct (Section 4.2.1 of [RFC5486]) or
    indirect (Section 4.2.2 of [RFC5486]) peering as necessary.
 o  Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP): See [RFC3550].
 o  Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): See [RFC3261].
 o  Signaling Path Border Element (SBE): A signaling path border
    element (SBE) is located on the administrative border of a domain
    through which inter-domain session-layer messages will flow.
    Typically, it provides Signaling Functions such as protocol inter-
    working (for example, H.323 to SIP), identity and topology hiding,
    and Session Admission Control for a domain.
 o  Signaling Function (SF): The Signaling Function (SF) performs
    routing of SIP requests for establishing and maintaining calls and
    in order to assist in the discovery or exchange of parameters to
    be used by the Media Function (MF).  The SF is a capability of SIP
    processing elements such as SIP proxies, SBEs, and User Agents.
 o  SIP Service Provider (SSP): A SIP Service Provider (SSP) is an
    entity that provides session services utilizing SIP signaling to
    its customers.  In the event that the SSP is also a function of
    the SP, it may also provide media streams to its customers.  Such
    an SSP may additionally be peered with other SSPs.  An SSP may
    also interconnect with the PSTN.

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 5] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

       +=============++                          ++=============+
                     ||                          ||
               +-----------+                +-----------+
               |    SBE    |       +-----+  |    SBE    |
               |  +-----+  | SIP   |Proxy|  |  +-----+  |
               |  | LUF |<-|------>|ENUM |  |  | LUF |  |
               |  +-----+  | ENUM  |TN DB|  |  +-----+  |
          SIP  |           |       +-----+  |           |
        ------>|  +-----+  | DNS   +-----+  |  +-----+  |
               |  | LRF |<-|------>|FQDN |  |  | LRF |  |
               |  +-----+  |       |IP   |  |  +-----+  |
               |  +-----+  | SIP   +-----+  |  +-----+  |
               |  | SF  |<-|----------------|->|  SF |  |
               |  +-----+  |                |  +-----+  |
               +-----------+                +-----------+
                    ||                           ||
               +-----------+                +-----------+
          RTP  |    DBE    | RTP            |    DBE    |
        ------>|           |--------------->|           |
               +-----------+                +-----------+
                     ||                          ||
        SSP1 Network ||                          || SSP2 Network
       +=============++                          ++=============+
 Reference Architecture
                               Figure 1

4. Procedures of Inter-Domain SSP Session Establishment

 This document assumes that in order for a session to be established
 from a User Agent (UA) in the Originating (or Indirect) SSP's network
 to a UA in the Target SSP's network the following steps are taken:
 1.  Determine the Target or Indirect SSP via the LUF.  (Note: If the
     target address represents an intra-SSP resource, the behavior is
     out of scope with respect to this document.)
 2.  Determine the address of the SF of the Target SSP via the LRF.
 3.  Establish the session.
 4.  Exchange the media, which could include voice, video, text, etc.
 5.  End the session (BYE)

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 6] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

 The Originating or Indirect SSP would perform steps 1-4, the Target
 SSP would perform step 4, and either one can perform step 5.
 In the case that the Target SSP changes, steps 1-4 would be repeated.
 This is reflected in Figure 1, which shows the Target SSP with its
 own peering functions.

5. Relationships between Functions/Elements

 Please also refer to Figure 1.
 o  An SBE can contain a Signaling Function (SF).
 o  An SF can perform a Lookup Function (LUF) and Location Routing
    Function (LRF).
 o  As an additional consideration, a Session Border Controller, can
    contain an SF, SBE and DBE, and may act as both an LUF and LRF.
 o  The following functions may communicate as follows in an example
    SSP network, depending upon various real-world implementations:
  • SF may communicate with the LUF, LRF, SBE, and SF
  • LUF may communicate with the SF and SBE
  • LRF may communicate with the SF and SBE

6. Recommended SSP Procedures

 This section describes the functions in more detail and provides some
 recommendations on the role they would play in a SIP call in a Layer
 5 peering scenario.
 Some of the information in this section is taken from [RFC6271] and
 is included here for continuity purposes.  It is also important to
 refer to Section 3.2 of [RFC6404], particularly with respect to the
 use of IPsec and TLS.

6.1. Originating or Indirect SSP Procedures

 This section describes the procedures of the Originating or indirect
 SSP.

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 7] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

6.1.1. The Lookup Function (LUF)

 The purpose of the LUF is to determine the SF of the target domain of
 a given request and optionally to develop Session Establishment Data.
 It is important to note that the LUF may utilize the public e164.arpa
 ENUM root, as well as one or more private roots.  When private roots
 are used, specialized routing rules may be implemented; these rules
 may vary depending upon whether an Originating or Indirect SSP is
 querying the LUF.

6.1.1.1. Target Address Analysis

 When the Originating (or Indirect) SSP receives a request to
 communicate, it analyzes the target URI to determine whether the call
 needs to be routed internally or externally to its network.  The
 analysis method is internal to the SSP; thus, outside the scope of
 SPEERMINT.
 If the target address does not represent a resource inside the
 Originating (or Indirect) SSP's administrative domain or federation
 of domains, then the Originating (or Indirect) SSP performs a Lookup
 Function (LUF) to determine a target address, and then it resolves
 the call routing data by using the Location Routing Function (LRF).
 For example, if the request to communicate is for an im: or pres: URI
 type [RFC3861] [RFC3953], the Originating (or Indirect) SSP follows
 the procedures in [RFC3861].  If the highest priority supported URI
 scheme is sip: or sips:, the Originating (or Indirect) SSP skips to
 SIP DNS resolution in Section 5.1.3.  Likewise, if the target address
 is already a sip: or sips: URI in an external domain, the Originating
 (or Indirect) SSP skips to SIP DNS resolution in Section 6.1.2.1.
 This may be the case, to use one example, with
 "sips:bob@biloxi.example.com".
 If the target address corresponds to a specific E.164 address, the
 SSP may need to perform some form of number plan mapping according to
 local policy.  For example, in the United States, a dial string
 beginning "011 44" could be converted to "+44"; in the United
 Kingdom, "00 1" could be converted to "+1".  Once the SSP has an
 E.164 address, it can use ENUM.

6.1.1.2. ENUM Lookup

 If an external E.164 address is the target, the Originating (or
 Indirect) SSP consults the public "User ENUM" rooted at e164.arpa,
 according to the procedures described in [RFC6116].  The SSP must
 query for the "E2U+sip" enumservice as described in [RFC3764], but
 may check for other enumservices.  The Originating (or Indirect) SSP

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 8] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

 may consult a cache or alternate representation of the ENUM data
 rather than actual DNS queries.  Also, the SSP may skip actual DNS
 queries if the Originating (or Indirect) SSP is sure that the target
 address country code is not represented in e164.arpa.
 If an im: or pres: URI is chosen based on an "E2U+im" [RFC3861] or
 "E2U+pres" [RFC3953] enumserver, the SSP follows the procedures for
 resolving these URIs to URIs for specific protocols such as SIP or
 Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) as described in the
 previous section.
 The Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) response to the ENUM lookup may
 be a SIP address of record (AOR) (such as "sips:bob@example.com") or
 SIP URI (such as "sips:bob@sbe1.biloxi.example.com").  In the case
 when a SIP URI is returned, the Originating (or Indirect) SSP has
 sufficient routing information to locate the Target SSP.  In the case
 of when a SIP AoR is returned, the SF then uses the LRF to determine
 the URI for more explicitly locating the Target SSP.

6.1.2. Location Routing Function (LRF)

 The LRF of an Originating (or Indirect) SSP analyzes target address
 and target domain identified by the LUF, and discovers the next-hop
 Signaling Function (SF) in a peering relationship.  The resource to
 determine the SF of the target domain might be provided by a third
 party as in the assisted-peering case.  The following sections define
 mechanisms that may be used by the LRF.  These are not in any
 particular order and, importantly, not all of them have to be used.

6.1.2.1. DNS Resolution

 The Originating (or Indirect) SSP uses the procedures in Section 4 of
 [RFC3263] to determine how to contact the receiving SSP.  To
 summarize the [RFC3263] procedure: unless these are explicitly
 encoded in the target URI, a transport is chosen using NAPTR records,
 a port is chosen using SRV records, and an address is chosen using A
 or AAAA records.
 When communicating with another SSP, entities compliant to this
 document should select a TLS-protected transport for communication
 from the Originating (or Indirect) SSP to the receiving SSP if
 available, as described further in Section 6.2.1.

6.1.2.2. Routing Table

 If there are no End User ENUM records and the Originating (or
 Indirect) SSP cannot discover the carrier-of-record or if the
 Originating (or Indirect) SSP cannot reach the carrier-of-record via

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 9] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

 SIP peering, the Originating (or Indirect) SSP may deliver the call
 to the PSTN or reject it.  Note that the Originating (or Indirect)
 SSP may forward the call to another SSP for PSTN gateway termination
 by prior arrangement using the local SIP proxy routing table.
 If so, the Originating (or Indirect) SSP rewrites the Request-URI to
 address the gateway resource in the Target SSP's domain and may
 forward the request on to that SSP using the procedures described in
 the remainder of these steps.

6.1.2.3. LRF to LRF Routing

 Communications between the LRF of two interconnecting SSPs may use
 DNS or statically provisioned IP addresses for reachability.  Other
 inputs to determine the path may be code-based routing, method-based
 routing, time of day, least cost and/or source-based routing.

6.1.3. The Signaling Path Border Element (SBE)

 The purpose of the Signaling Function is to perform routing of SIP
 messages as well as optionally implement security and policies on SIP
 messages and to assist in discovery/exchange of parameters to be used
 by the Media Function (MF).  The Signaling Function performs the
 routing of SIP messages.  The SBE may be a back-to-back user agent
 (B2BUA) or it may act as a SIP proxy.  Optionally, an SF may perform
 additional functions such as Session Admission Control, SIP Denial-
 of-Service protection, SIP Topology Hiding, SIP header normalization,
 SIP security, privacy, and encryption.  The SF of an SBE can also
 process SDP payloads for media information such as media type,
 bandwidth, and type of codec; then, communicate this information to
 the media function.

6.1.3.1. Establishing a Trusted Relationship

 Depending on the security needs and trust relationships between SSPs,
 different security mechanisms can be used to establish SIP calls.
 These are discussed in the following subsections.

6.1.3.2. IPsec

 In certain deployments, the use of IPsec between the Signaling
 Functions of the originating and terminating domains can be used as a
 security mechanism instead of TLS.  However, such IPsec use should be
 the subject of a future document as additional specification is
 necessary to use IPsec properly and effectively.

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 10] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

6.1.3.3. Co-Location

 In this scenario, the SFs are co-located in a physically secure
 location and/or are members of a segregated network.  In this case,
 messages between the Originating and Terminating SSPs could be sent
 as clear text (unencrypted).  However, even in these semi-trusted co-
 location facilities, other security or access control mechanisms may
 be appropriate, such as IP access control lists or other mechanisms.

6.1.3.4. Sending the SIP Request

 Once a trust relationship between the peers is established, the
 Originating (or Indirect) SSP sends the request.

6.2. Target SSP Procedures

 This section describes the Target SSP Procedures.

6.2.1. TLS

 The section defines the usage of TLS between two SSPs [RFC5246]
 [RFC5746] [RFC5878].  When the receiving SSP receives a TLS client
 hello, it responds with its certificate.  The Target SSP certificate
 should be valid and rooted in a well-known certificate authority.
 The procedures to authenticate the SSP's originating domain are
 specified in [RFC5922].
 The SF of the Target SSP verifies that the Identity header is valid,
 corresponds to the message, corresponds to the Identity-Info header,
 and that the domain in the From header corresponds to one of the
 domains in the TLS client certificate.
 As noted above in Section 6.1.3.2, some deployments may utilize IPsec
 rather than TLS.

6.2.2. Receive SIP Requests

 Once a trust relationship is established, the Target SSP is prepared
 to receive incoming SIP requests.  For new requests (dialog forming
 or not), the receiving SSP verifies if the target (Request-URI) is a
 domain for which it is responsible.  For these requests, there should
 be no remaining Route header field values.  For in-dialog requests,
 the receiving SSP can verify that it corresponds to the top-most
 Route header field value.

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 11] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

 The receiving SSP may reject incoming requests due to local policy.
 When a request is rejected because the Originating (or Indirect) SSP
 is not authorized to peer, the receiving SSP should respond with a
 403 response with the reason phrase "Unsupported Peer".

6.3. Data Path Border Element (DBE)

 The purpose of the DBE [RFC5486] is to perform media-related
 functions such as media transcoding and media security implementation
 between two SSPs.
 An example of this is to transform a voice payload from one codec
 (e.g., G.711) to another (e.g., EvRC).  Additionally, the MF may
 perform media relaying, media security [RFC3711], privacy, and
 encryption.

7. Address Space Considerations

 Peering must occur in a common IP address space, which is defined by
 the federation, which may be entirely on the public Internet, or some
 private address space [RFC1918].  The origination or termination
 networks may or may not entirely be in the same address space.  If
 they are not, then a Network Address Translation (NAT) or similar may
 be needed before the signaling or media is presented correctly to the
 federation.  The only requirement is that all associated entities
 across the peering interface are reachable.

8. Acknowledgments

 The working group would like to thank John Elwell, Otmar Lendl, Rohan
 Mahy, Alexander Mayrhofer, Jim McEachern, Jean-Francois Mule,
 Jonathan Rosenberg, and Dan Wing for their valuable contributions to
 various versions of this document.

9. Security Considerations

 The level (or types) of security mechanisms implemented between
 peering providers is, in practice, dependent upon on the underlying
 physical security of SSP connections.  This means, as noted in
 Section 6.1.3.3, whether peering equipment is in a secure facility or
 not may bear on other types of security mechanisms that may be
 appropriate.  Thus, if two SSPs peered across public Internet links,
 they are likely to use IPsec or TLS since the link between the two
 domains should be considered untrusted.
 Many detailed and highly relevant security requirements for SPEERMINT
 have been documented in Section 5 of [RFC6271].  As a result, that
 document should be considered required reading.

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 12] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

 Additional and important security considerations have been documented
 separately in [RFC6404].  This document describes the many relevant
 security threats to SPEERMINT, as well the relevant countermeasures
 and security protections that are recommended to combat any potential
 threats or other risks.  This includes a wide range of detailed
 threats in Section 2 of [RFC6404].  It also includes key requirements
 in Section 3.1 of [RFC6404], such as the requirement for the LUF and
 LRF to support mutual authentication for queries, among other
 requirements which are related to [RFC6271].  Section 3.2 of
 [RFC6404] explains how to meet these security requirements, and then
 Section 4 explores a wide range of suggested countermeasures.

10. Contributors

 Mike Hammer
 Cisco Systems
 Herndon, VA
 US
 EMail: mhammer@cisco.com
 Hadriel Kaplan
 Acme Packet
 Burlington, MA
 US
 EMail: hkaplan@acmepacket.com
 Sohel Khan, Ph.D.
 Comcast Cable
 Philadelphia, PA
 US
 EMail: sohel_khan@cable.comcast.com
 Reinaldo Penno
 Juniper Networks
 Sunnyvale, CA
 US
 EMail: rpenno@juniper.net
 David Schwartz
 XConnect Global Networks
 Jerusalem
 Israel
 EMail: dschwartz@xconnnect.net

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 13] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

 Rich Shockey
 Shockey Consulting
 US
 EMail: Richard@shockey.us
 Adam Uzelac
 Global Crossing
 Rochester, NY
 US
 EMail: adam.uzelac@globalcrossing.com

11. References

11.1. Normative References

 [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
            specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
 [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
            E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
            BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
 [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.
 [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
            Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
            Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
 [RFC3764]  Peterson, J., "enumservice registration for Session
            Initiation Protocol (SIP) Addresses-of-Record", RFC 3764,
            April 2004.
 [RFC3861]  Peterson, J., "Address Resolution for Instant Messaging
            and Presence", RFC 3861, August 2004.
 [RFC3953]  Peterson, J., "Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service
            Registration for Presence Services", RFC 3953,
            January 2005.

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 14] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

 [RFC5067]  Lind, S. and P. Pfautz, "Infrastructure ENUM
            Requirements", RFC 5067, November 2007.
 [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
            (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
 [RFC5486]  Malas, D. and D. Meyer, "Session Peering for Multimedia
            Interconnect (SPEERMINT) Terminology", RFC 5486,
            March 2009.
 [RFC5746]  Rescorla, E., Ray, M., Dispensa, S., and N. Oskov,
            "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication
            Extension", RFC 5746, February 2010.
 [RFC5853]  Hautakorpi, J., Camarillo, G., Penfield, R., Hawrylyshen,
            A., and M. Bhatia, "Requirements from Session Initiation
            Protocol (SIP) Session Border Control (SBC) Deployments",
            RFC 5853, April 2010.
 [RFC5878]  Brown, M. and R. Housley, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
            Authorization Extensions", RFC 5878, May 2010.
 [RFC5922]  Gurbani, V., Lawrence, S., and A. Jeffrey, "Domain
            Certificates in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
            RFC 5922, June 2010.
 [RFC6116]  Bradner, S., Conroy, L., and K. Fujiwara, "The E.164 to
            Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation
            Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 6116,
            March 2011.
 [RFC6271]  Mule, J-F., "Requirements for SIP-Based Session Peering",
            RFC 6271, June 2011.
 [RFC6404]  Seedorf, J., Niccolini, S., Chen, E., and H. Scholz,
            "Session PEERing for Multimedia INTerconnect (SPEERMINT)
            Security Threats and Suggested Countermeasures", RFC 6404,
            November 2011.

11.2. Informative References

 [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
            Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
            RFC 3711, March 2004.
 [RFC6405]  Uzelac, A., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Voice over IP (VoIP) SIP
            Peering Use Cases", RFC 6405, November 2011.

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 15] RFC 6406 SPEERMINT Peering Architecture November 2011

Authors' Addresses

 Daryl Malas (editor)
 CableLabs
 Louisville, CO
 US
 EMail: d.malas@cablelabs.com
 Jason Livingood (editor)
 Comcast
 Philadelphia, PA
 US
 EMail: Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com

Malas & Livingood Informational [Page 16]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6406.txt · Last modified: 2011/11/05 01:04 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki