[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-meyer-speermint-reqs-and-terminology) 00 01 draft-ietf-speermint-terminology

Network Working Group                                           D. Meyer
Internet-Draft                                         February 17, 2006
Expires: August 21, 2006


                 SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology
            draft-ietf-speermint-reqs-and-terminology-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/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 August 21, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document outlines the solutions space requirements and defines
   the terminology that is to be used by the Session PEERing for
   Multimedia INTerconnect Working Group (SPEERMINT).  It has as its
   primary objective to focus the working group during its discussions,
   and when writing requirements, gap analysis and other solutions
   oriented documents.






Meyer                    Expires August 21, 2006                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology    February 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Context  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  General Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Call Routing Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Call Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.3.  PSTN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.4.  Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.5.  VoIP Service Provider  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.6.  Peering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.6.1.  Layer 3 Peering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.6.2.  Layer 5 Peering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.7.  Session Peering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  ENUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Carrier of Record  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Public ENUM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.3.  Private ENUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.4.  Carrier ENUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  Unified solution for all peering policies  . . . . . . . .  7
     5.2.  Domain Based . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.3.  No blocked calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.4.  Scaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.5.  Independence of lower layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.6.  Administrative and technical policies  . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.7.  Minimal additional cost on call initiation . . . . . . . .  9
     5.8.  Look beyond SIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10















Meyer                    Expires August 21, 2006                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology    February 2006


1.  Introduction

   The term "VoIP Peering" has historically been used to describe a wide
   variety of aspects pertaining to the interconnection of service
   provider networks and to the delivery of SIP call termination over
   those interconnections.  The discussion of these interconnections has
   at times been confused by the fact that the term "peering" is used in
   various contexts to relate to interconnection at different levels in
   a protocol stack.  Session Peering for Multimedia Interconnect
   focuses on how to identify and route real-time sessions (such as VoIP
   calls) at the application layer, and it does not (necessarily)
   involve the exchange of packet routing data or media sessions.  In
   particular, "layer 5 network" is used here to refer to the
   interconnection between SIP servers, as opposed to interconnection at
   the IP layer ("layer 3").  Finally, the terms "peering" and
   "interconnect" are used interchangeably throughout this document.

   This document introduces standard terminology for use in
   characterizing real-time session interconnection.  Note however, that
   while this document is primarily targeted at the VoIP interconnect
   case, the terminology described here is applicable to those cases in
   which service providers interconnect using SIP signaling for real-
   time or quasi-real-time communications.

   The remainder of this document is organized as follows: Section 2
   provides the general context for the SPEERMINT Working Group.
   Section 3 provides the general definitions for real-time SIP based
   communication, with initial focus on the VoIP interconnect case, and
   Section 4 briefly touches on terms from the ENUM Working Group.
   Finally, Section 5 provides the requirements for SPEERMINT working
   group solutions.


2.  Context

   Figure 1 depicts the general VoIP interconnect context.  In this
   case, the caller uses an E.164 number [ITU.E164.1991] as the "name"
   of the called user.  Note that this E.164 number is not an address,
   since at this point we do not have information about where the named
   endpoint is located.  In the case shown here, an E.164 number is used
   as a key to retrieve a NAPTR recored [RFC3404] from the DNS, which in
   turn resolved into a SIP URI.  Call routing is based on this SIP URI.
   The call routing step does not depend on the presence of an E.164
   number; the SIP URI can be advertised in various other ways, such as
   on a web page.  Finally, note that the subsequent lookup steps,
   namely, lookup of SRV, A, and AAAA records (as well as any routing
   steps below that) are outside the scope of SPEERMINT.




Meyer                    Expires August 21, 2006                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology    February 2006


           E.164 number <--- Peer Discovery
                |
                | <--- ENUM lookup of NAPTR in DNS
                |
                |
                | ENUM Working Group Scope
           =====+=======================================
                | SPEERMINT Working Group Scope
                |
                |
           SIP URI <--- Call Routing Data (CRD)
                |
                | <--- Service Location (Lookup of SRV in DNS)
                |
                |
           Hostname <--- Addressing and session establishment
                |
                | <---- Lookup of A and AAAA in DNS
                |
           Ip address
                |
                | <---- Routing protocols, ARP etc
                |
           Mac-address

                  Figure 1: Session Interconnect Context

   The ENUM Working Group is primarily concerned with the acquisition of
   Call Routing Data, or CRD (i.e., above the double line in Figure 1),
   while the SPEERMINT Working Group is focused on the use of such CRD.
   Importantly, the CRD can be derived from ENUM (i.e., an E.164 DNS
   entry), or via any other mechanism available to the user.


3.  General Definitions

3.1.  Call Routing Data

   Call Routing Data, or CRD, is a SIP URI used to route a call (real-
   time, voice or other type) to the called domain's ingress point.  A
   domain's ingress point can be thought of as the location pointed to
   by the SRV record that resulted from the resolution of the CRD (i.e.,
   a SIP URI).

3.2.  Call Routing

   Call routing is the set of processes, rules, and CRD used to route a
   call to its proper (SIP) destination.  More generally, call routing



Meyer                    Expires August 21, 2006                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology    February 2006


   can be thought of as the set of processes, rules and CRD which are
   used to route a real-time session to its termination (ingress) point.

3.3.  PSTN

   The term "PSTN" refers to the Public Switched Telephone Network.  In
   particular, the PSTN refers to the collection of interconnected
   circuit-switched voice-oriented public telephone networks, both
   commercial and government-owned.  In general, PSTN terminals are
   addressed using E.164 numbers, noting that various dial-plans (such
   as emergency services dial-plans) may not directly use E.164 numbers.

3.4.  Network

   For purposes of this document and the SPEERMINT and ENUM Working
   Groups, a network is defined to be the set of SIP servers and end-
   users (customers) that are controlled by a single administrative
   domain.  The network may also contain end-users who are located on
   the PSTN.

3.5.  VoIP Service Provider

   A VoIP service provider is an entity that provides transport of SIP
   signaling (and possibly media streams) to its customers.  Such a
   service provider may additionally be interconnected with other
   service providers; that is, it may "peer" with other service
   providers.  A VoIP service provider may also interconnect with the
   PSTN.

   Note that as soon as a ingress point is advertised via a SRV record,
   anyone can find that ingress point and hence can send calls there.
   This is very similar to sending mail to a SMTP server based on the
   existence of a MX record.

3.6.  Peering

   While the precise definition of the term "peering" is the subject of
   some debate, peering in general refers to the negotiation of
   reciprocal interconnection arrangements, settlement-free or
   otherwise, between operationally independent service providers.

   This document distinguishes two types of peering, Layer 3 Peering and
   Layer 5 peering, which are described below.

3.6.1.  Layer 3 Peering

   Layer 3 peering refers to interconnection of two service providers
   for the purposes of exchanging IP packets which destined for one (or



Meyer                    Expires August 21, 2006                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology    February 2006


   both) of the peer's networks.  Layer 3 peering is generally agnostic
   to the IP payload, and is frequently achieved using a routing
   protocol such as BGP [RFC1771] to exchange the required routing
   information.

   An alternate, perhaps more operational definition of layer 3 peering
   is that two peers exchange only customer routes, and hence any
   traffic between peers terminates on one of the peer's network.

3.6.2.  Layer 5 Peering

   Layer 5 peering refers to interconnection of two service providers
   for the purposes of SIP signaling.  Note that in the layer 5 peering
   case, there is no intervening network.  That is, for purposes of this
   discussion, there is no such thing as a "Layer 5 Transit Network".

3.7.  Session Peering

   Session peering is defined to be a layer 5 peering between two VoIP
   providers for purposes of routing real-time (or quasi-real time) call
   signaling between their respective customers.  Media streams
   associated with this signaling (if any) are not constrained to follow
   the same set of paths.


4.  ENUM

   ENUM [RFC3761] defines how the Domain Name System (DNS) can be used
   for identifying available services connected to one E.164 number.

4.1.  Carrier of Record

   For purposes of this document, "Carrier of Record", or COR, refers to
   the entity that provides PSTN service for an E.164 number
   [I-D.lind-infrastructure-enum-reqs].  The exact definition of who and
   what is a COR is ultimately the responsibility of the relevant
   National Regulatory Authority.

4.2.  Public ENUM

   Public ENUM is generally defined as the set administrative policies
   and procedures surrounding the use of the e164.arpa domain for
   Telephone Number to URI resolution [RFC3761].  Policies and
   procedures for the registration of telephone numbers within all
   branches of the e164.arpa tree are Nation State issues by agreement
   with the IAB and ITU.  National Regulatory Authorities have generally
   defined Public ENUM Registrants as the E.164 number holder as opposed
   to the COR that issued the phone number.



Meyer                    Expires August 21, 2006                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology    February 2006


4.3.  Private ENUM

   Private ENUM is generally regarded as one or more technologies
   (including DNS and SIP Redirect) that service providers or
   enterprises may use to exchange phone number to URI mappings in a
   private secure manner.  Private ENUM may be used in any mutually
   agreed upon domain.  Records in Private ENUM may be globally visible
   but in most cases are not visible to the global Internet and are
   protected using a variety of security technologies such as split-DNS,
   VPN's or various forms or authentication and authorization.
   Technical comments on issues surrounding split-DNS can be found in
   [RFC2826].

4.4.  Carrier ENUM

   Carrier ENUM is generally regarded as the use of a separate branch
   the e164.arpa tree, such as 4.4.c.e164.arpa to permit service
   providers to exchange phone number to URI data in order to find
   points of interconnection.  The current theory of Carrier ENUM is
   that only the COR for a particular E.164 number is permitted to
   provision data for that E.164 within that portion of the e164.arpa
   tree.

   In carrier ENUM case, only the COR may enter data in the
   corresponding domain.  The COR may also enter CRD (i.e., a SIP URI)
   to allow other VoIP Service Providers to route calls to its network.

   Finally, note that ENUM is not constrained to carry only data (CDR)
   as defined by SPEERMINT.  In particular, an an important class of
   CRD, the tel URIs [RFC3966] may be carried in ENUM.  Such tel URIs
   are most frequently used to interconnect with the PSTN directly, and
   are out of scope for SPEERMINT.  On the other hand, PSTN endpoints
   served by a COR and reachable via CDR and networks as defined in
   Section 3.1 and Section 3.4 are in scope for SPEERMINT.


5.  Requirements

   A system for real-time session interconnection must satisfy the
   following requirements:

5.1.  Unified solution for all peering policies

   Policies developed in the context of the SPEERMINT working group must
   be extensible and flexible enough to cover existing and future
   peering policies.  These start by a closed system which accepts only
   incoming calls from selected peers (i.e. a set of bilateral peerings)
   and include the model of membership in a number of peering fabrics or



Meyer                    Expires August 21, 2006                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology    February 2006


   carrier clubs.  The case of an open SIP proxy should be covered as a
   special case as well.

5.2.  Domain Based

   Although the initial call routing may be based on E.164 numbers, a
   generic peering methodology should not rely on such numbers.  Rather,
   call routing should rely on URIs.  We assume that all SIP URIs with
   the same domain-part share the same set of peering policies, thus the
   domain of the SIP URI may be used as the primary key to any
   information regarding the reachability of that SIP URI.

5.3.  No blocked calls

   An originating service provide must be able to determine whether a
   SIP URI is open for direct interconnection without actually sending a
   SIP INVITE.  This is important as unsuccessful call attempts are
   highly undesirable since they can introduce high delays due to
   timeouts and can act as an unintended denial of service attack.
   (e.g., by repeated TLS handshakes).

5.4.  Scaling

   The maintenance of the system needs to scale beyond simple lists of
   peering partners.  In particular, it must incorporate aggregation
   mechanisms which avoid O(n^2) scaling (where n is the number of
   participating service providers).  Per-service provider opt-in
   without consultation of a centralized 'peering registry', but rather
   by publishing local configuration choices only is highly desirable.
   The distributed management of the DNS is a good example for the
   scalability of this approach.

5.5.  Independence of lower layers

   The system needs to be independent of details on what technologies
   are used route the call and which are used to ensure that only
   approved peering partner actually connect to the destination SIP
   proxy.  It should not matter whether restrictions are implemented by
   private L3 connectivity ("walled gardens"), firewalls, TLS policies
   or SIP proxy configuration.

5.6.  Administrative and technical policies

   The reasons for declining vs. accepting incoming calls from a
   prospective peering partner can be both administrative (contractual,
   legal, commercial, or business decisions) and technical (certain QoS
   parameters, TLS keys, domain keys, ...).  Methodologies developed by
   the SPEERMINT working group should accommodate all policies.



Meyer                    Expires August 21, 2006                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology    February 2006


5.7.  Minimal additional cost on call initiation

   Since each call setup implies execution of any proposed algorithm it
   should incur minimal overhead and delay, and employ caching wherever
   possible to avoid extra protocol round trips.

5.8.  Look beyond SIP

   The problem of selective peering is not limited to SIP-based
   communication.  Other protocols may benefit from a generic framework
   as well, such as SMTP mail.  Any solutions proposed by the SPEERMINT
   working group must be generic enough to encompass other protocols as
   well.


6.  Acknowledgments

   Many of the definitions were gleaned from detailed discussions on the
   SPEERMINT, ENUM, and SIPPING mailing lists.  Scott Brim, Mike Hammer,
   Jean-Francois Mule, Richard Shocky, Henry Sinnreich, and Richard
   Stastny all made valuable contributions to early revisions of this
   document.  Patrik Faltstrom also made many insightful comments to
   early versions of this draft, and contributed the basis of Figure 1.
   Finally, Otmar Lendl contributed much of the text found in the
   Requirements section.


7.  Security Considerations

   This document itself introduces no new security considerations.
   However, it is important to note that Session interconnect, as
   described in this document, has a wide variety of security issues
   that should be considered in documents addressing both protocol and
   use case analyzes.


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document creates no new requirements on IANA namespaces
   [RFC2434].


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC3404]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
              Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)",



Meyer                    Expires August 21, 2006                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology    February 2006


              RFC 3404, October 2002.

   [RFC3761]  Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform
              Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery
              System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.

   [ITU.E164.1991]
              International Telecommunications Union, "The International
              Public Telecommunication Numbering Plan", ITU-
              T Recommendation E.164, 1991.

   [RFC3966]  Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers",
              RFC 3966, December 2004.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1771]  Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
              (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

   [RFC2826]  Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical Comment on the
              Unique DNS Root", RFC 2826, May 2000.

   [I-D.lind-infrastructure-enum-reqs]
              Lind, S., "Infrastructure ENUM Requirements",
              draft-lind-infrastructure-enum-reqs-00 (work in progress),
              July 2005.


Author's Address

   David Meyer

   Email: dmm@1-4-5.net


Full 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.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an



Meyer                    Expires August 21, 2006               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   SPEERMINT Requirements and Terminology    February 2006


   "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 documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.














Meyer                    Expires August 21, 2006               [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/