draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-08.txt   draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-09.txt 
P2PSIP Working Group D. Bryan P2PSIP Working Group D. Bryan
Internet-Draft Cogent Force, LLC Internet-Draft Cogent Force, LLC
Intended status: Informational P. Matthews Intended status: Informational P. Matthews
Expires: August 14, 2016 Alcatel-Lucent Expires: October 23, 2016 Alcatel-Lucent
E. Shim E. Shim
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
D. Willis D. Willis
Softarmor Systems Softarmor Systems
S. Dawkins S. Dawkins
Huawei (USA) Huawei (USA)
February 11, 2016 April 21, 2016
Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP
draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-08 draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-09
Abstract Abstract
This document defines concepts and terminology for the use of the This document defines concepts and terminology for the use of the
Session Initiation Protocol in a peer-to-peer environment where the Session Initiation Protocol in a peer-to-peer environment where the
traditional proxy-registrar and message routing functions are traditional proxy-registrar and message routing functions are
replaced by a distributed mechanism. These mechanisms may be replaced by a distributed mechanism. These mechanisms may be
implemented using a distributed hash table or other distributed data implemented using a distributed hash table or other distributed data
mechanism with similar external properties. This document includes a mechanism with similar external properties. This document includes a
high-level view of the functional relationships between the network high-level view of the functional relationships between the network
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 23, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
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 Table of Contents
1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. High-Level Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. High-Level Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Relationship Between P2PSIP and SIP . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4. Relationship Between P2PSIP and SIP . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR Dereferencing 2.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR Dereferencing
Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6. NAT Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.6. NAT Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
skipping to change at page 3, line 11 skipping to change at page 2, line 48
5.5. Clients and Connecting Unmodified SIP Devices . . . . . . 15 5.5. Clients and Connecting Unmodified SIP Devices . . . . . . 15
5.6. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.6. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Background 1. Background
One of the fundamental problems in multimedia communication between One of the fundamental problems in multimedia communication between
Internet nodes is discovering the host at which a given user can be Internet nodes is the rendezvous problem, or discovering the host at
reached. In the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] this which a given user can be reached. In the Session Initiation
problem is expressed as the problem of mapping an Address of Record Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] this problem is expressed as the problem of
(AoR) for a user into one or more Contact URIs [RFC3986]. The AoR is mapping an Address of Record (AoR) for a user into one or more
a name for the user that is independent of the host or hosts where Contact URIs [RFC3986]. The AoR is a name for the user that is
the user can be contacted, while a Contact URI indicates the host independent of the host or hosts where the user can be contacted,
where the user can be contacted. while a Contact URI indicates the host where the user can be
contacted.
In the common SIP-using architectures that we refer to as In the common SIP-using architectures that we refer to as
"Conventional SIP" or "Client/Server SIP", there is a relatively "Conventional SIP" or "Client/Server SIP", there is a relatively
fixed hierarchy of SIP routing proxies and SIP user agents. To fixed hierarchy of SIP routing proxies and SIP user agents. To
deliver a SIP INVITE to the host or hosts at which the user can be deliver a SIP INVITE to the host or hosts at which the user can be
contacted, a SIP UA follows the procedures specified in [RFC3263] to contacted, a SIP UA follows the procedures specified in [RFC3263] to
determine the IP address of a SIP proxy, and then sends the INVITE to determine the IP address of a SIP proxy, and then sends the INVITE to
that proxy. The proxy will then, in turn, deliver the SIP INVITE to that proxy. The proxy will then, in turn, deliver the SIP INVITE to
the hosts where the user can be contacted. the hosts where the user can be contacted.
skipping to change at page 5, line 10 skipping to change at page 4, line 47
An overlay may or may not also include one or more nodes called An overlay may or may not also include one or more nodes called
clients. Clients are supported in the RELOAD protocol as peers that clients. Clients are supported in the RELOAD protocol as peers that
have not joined the overlay, and therefore do not route messages or have not joined the overlay, and therefore do not route messages or
store information. Clients access the services of the RELOAD store information. Clients access the services of the RELOAD
protocol by connecting to a peer which performs operations on the protocol by connecting to a peer which performs operations on the
behalf of the client. Note that in RELOAD there is no distinct behalf of the client. Note that in RELOAD there is no distinct
client protocol. Instead, a client connects using the same protocol, client protocol. Instead, a client connects using the same protocol,
but never joins the overlay as a peer. For more information, see but never joins the overlay as a peer. For more information, see
[RFC6940]. [RFC6940].
Note that in the context of P2PSIP, there is an additional entity A special peer may also be a member of the P2PSIP overlay and may
that is sometimes referred to as a client. A special peer may be a present the functionality of one or all of a SIP registrar, proxy or
member of the in the P2PSIP overlay and may present the functionality redirect server to conventional SIP devices (i.e., unmodified SIP UA
of one or all of a SIP registrar, proxy or redirect server to or client). In this way, existing, unmodified SIP clients may
conventional SIP devices (SIP clients). In this way, existing, non- connect to the P2PSIP network. Note that in the context of P2PSIP,
modified SIP clients may connect to the network. These unmodified the unmodified SIP client is also sometimes referred to as a client.
SIP devices do not speak the RELOAD protocol, and this is a distinct
concept from the notion of client discussed in the previous These unmodified SIP devices do not speak the RELOAD protocol, and
paragraph. this is a distinct concept from the notion of client discussed in the
previous paragraph.
2.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD 2.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD
The RELOAD protocol defined by the P2PSIP working group implements a The RELOAD protocol defined by the P2PSIP working group implements a
DHT primarily for use by server-less, peer-to-peer SIP deployments. DHT primarily for use by server-less, peer-to-peer SIP deployments.
However, the RELOAD protocol could be used for other applications as However, the RELOAD protocol could be used for other applications as
well. As such, a "P2PSIP" deployment is generally assumed to be a well. As such, a "P2PSIP" deployment is generally assumed to be a
use of RELOAD to implement distributed SIP, but it is possible that use of RELOAD to implement distributed SIP, but it is possible that
RELOAD is used as a mechanism to distribute other applications, RELOAD is used as a mechanism to distribute other applications,
completely unrelated to SIP. completely unrelated to SIP.
skipping to change at page 5, line 48 skipping to change at page 5, line 37
the peer or client portion of the node is logically distinct from the the peer or client portion of the node is logically distinct from the
SIP entity portion. However, there is no hard requirement that every SIP entity portion. However, there is no hard requirement that every
P2PSIP node (peer or client) be coupled to a SIP entity. As an P2PSIP node (peer or client) be coupled to a SIP entity. As an
example, additional peers could be placed in the overlay to provide example, additional peers could be placed in the overlay to provide
additional storage or redundancy for the RELOAD overlay, but might additional storage or redundancy for the RELOAD overlay, but might
not have any direct SIP capabilities. not have any direct SIP capabilities.
2.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR Dereferencing Approaches 2.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR Dereferencing Approaches
As noted above, the fundamental task of P2PSIP is turning an AoR into As noted above, the fundamental task of P2PSIP is turning an AoR into
a Contact. This task might be approached using zeroconf techniques a Contact. This task might be approached using zero configuration
such as multicast DNS and DNS Service Discovery [RFC6762][RFC6763], techniques such as multicast DNS and DNS Service Discovery
link-local multicast name resolution [RFC4795], and dynamic DNS [RFC6762][RFC6763], link-local multicast name resolution [RFC4795],
[RFC2136]. and dynamic DNS [RFC2136].
These alternatives were discussed in the P2PSIP Working Group, and These alternatives were discussed in the P2PSIP Working Group, and
not pursued as a general solution for a number of reasons related to not pursued as a general solution for a number of reasons related to
scalability, the ability to work in a disconnected state, partition scalability, the ability to work in a disconnected state, partition
recovery, and so on. However, there does seem to be some continuing recovery, and so on. However, there does seem to be some continuing
interest in the possibility of using DNS-SD and mDNS for interest in the possibility of using DNS-SD and mDNS for
bootstrapping of P2PSIP overlays. bootstrapping of P2PSIP overlays.
2.6. NAT Issues 2.6. NAT Issues
skipping to change at page 16, line 49 skipping to change at page 16, line 49
peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications", peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications",
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Neworking Volume 11 Issue 1, pp. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Neworking Volume 11 Issue 1, pp.
17-32, Feb. 2003, August 2001. 17-32, Feb. 2003, August 2001.
Copy available at http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/chord/papers/ Copy available at http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/chord/papers/
paper-ton.pdf paper-ton.pdf
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-diagnostics] [I-D.ietf-p2psip-diagnostics]
Song, H., Xingfeng, J., Even, R., Bryan, D., and Y. Sun, Song, H., Xingfeng, J., Even, R., Bryan, D., and Y. Sun,
"P2P Overlay Diagnostics", draft-ietf-p2psip- "P2P Overlay Diagnostics", draft-ietf-p2psip-
diagnostics-19 (work in progress), November 2015. diagnostics-22 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip] [I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip]
Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S., Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S.,
Schulzrinne, H., and T. Schmidt, "A SIP Usage for RELOAD", Schulzrinne, H., and T. Schmidt, "A SIP Usage for RELOAD",
draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-16 (work in progress), December draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-20 (work in progress), April 2016.
2015.
[RFC2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, [RFC2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
RFC 2136, DOI 10.17487/RFC2136, April 1997, RFC 2136, DOI 10.17487/RFC2136, April 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2136>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2136>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
41 lines changed or deleted 30 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/