wdiff rfc7092.original rfc7092.txt

STRAW Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Kaplan
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 7092 Oracle
Intended status:
Category: Informational V. Pascual
Expires: April 21, 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721 Quobis
October 18,
December 2013

A Taxonomy of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Back-to-Back User Agents
draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-taxonomy-03

Abstract

In many SIP deployments, SIP entities exist in the SIP signaling path
between the originating and final terminating endpoints, which go
beyond the definition of a SIP Proxy, proxy, performing functions not
defined in standards-track Standards Track RFCs. The only term for such devices
provided in [RFC3261] RFC 3261 is for a Back-to-Back User Agent (B2BUA), which
is defined as the logical concatenation of a SIP User Agent Server
(UAS) and User Agent Client (UAC).

There are numerous types of SIP Back-to-Back User Agents, B2BUAs performing different roles in
different ways. For Example IP-PBXs, ways; for example, IP Private Branch Exchanges (IPBXs),
Session Border Controllers (SBC) [RFC5853] (SBCs), and Application Servers (AS). (ASs).
This document identifies several common Back-to-Back User Agent
roles, B2BUA roles in order to
provide taxonomy other documents can use and reference.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid 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 maximum candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2014.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7092.

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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. B2BUA Role Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Signaling-plane Signaling Plane B2BUA Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Proxy-B2BUA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3
3.1.2. Signaling-only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.3. SDP-Modifying Signaling-only . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Media-plane Signaling/Media Plane B2BUA Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4
3.2.1. Media-relay Media Relay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Media-aware Media Aware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Media-termination Media Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Mapping SIP Device Types to B2BUA Roles . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. SIP PBXs and Softswitches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Application Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Session Border Controllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Transcoders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5. Conference Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.6. P-CSCF and IBCF Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
4.7. S-CSCF Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. Introduction

In current SIP deployments, there are numerous forms of Back-to-Back
User Agents (B2BUAs), operating at various levels of transparency, transparency and
for various purposes, and with widely varying behavior from a SIP
protocol
perspective. Some act as pure SIP Proxies proxies and only change to the
role of B2BUA in order to generate BYEs to terminate dead sessions.
Some are full User Agent stacks with only high-level event and
application logic binding the User Agent Server (UAS) and User Agent
Client (UAC) sides. Some B2BUAs operate only in the SIP signaling
plane, while others participate in the media plane as well.

As more SIP domains get are deployed and interconnected interconnected, the probability
of a single SIP session crossing multiple B2BUA's B2BUAs at both the
signaling and media planes increases significantly.

This document provides a taxonomy of several common B2BUA roles, roles so
that other documents may refer to them using their given names
without re-defining redefining them in each document.

2. Terminology

The following terms are defined in [RFC3261], Section 6.

B2BUA: a SIP Back-to-Back User Agent, which is the logical
combination of a User Agent Server (UAS) and User Agent
Client (UAC).

UAS: a SIP User Agent Server.

UAC: a SIP User Agent Client.

3. B2BUA Role Types

Within the context of this document, the classification refers to a
B2BUA role, not a particular system type. A given system type may
change its role in the middle of a SIP session, for example example, when a
Stateful Proxy tears-down
stateful proxy tears down a session by generating BYEs; BYEs or for
example when an SBC
[RFC5853] performs transcoding or REFER termination.

Furthermore, this document defines 'B2BUA' "B2BUA" following the definition
provided in [RFC3261], which is the logical concatenation of a UAS
and UAC. A typical centralized conference server, for example, is
not a B2BUA because it is the target UAS of multiple UACs, whereby
the UACs individually and independently initiate separate SIP
sessions to the central conference server. Likewise, a third-party
call control transcoder transcoder, as described in section Section 3.1 of [RFC5369] [RFC5369], is
not a B2BUA; B2BUA, whereas an inline (conference bridge) transcoder based
on [RFC5370] is a B2BUA.

3.1. Signaling-plane Signaling Plane B2BUA Roles

A Signaling-plane signaling plane B2BUA is one that operates only on the SIP message
protocol layer, layer and only with SIP messages and headers but not with
the media itself in any way. This implies that it does not modify
the Session Description Protocol (SDP) bodies, although it may save
them and/or operate on other MIME body types. This category is
further subdivided into specific roles as described in this section.

It should be noted that there is a large variety of modifications
made by "Signaling-plane B2BUA's" "signaling plane B2BUAs".

3.1.1. Proxy-B2BUA

A Proxy-B2BUA is one that appears, from a SIP protocol perspective, to be a
SIP Proxy proxy based on [RFC3261] and its extensions, except that it
maintains a sufficient dialog state to generate in-dialog SIP
messages on its own and does so in specific cases. The most common
example of this is a SIP Proxy which proxy that can generate BYE requests to
tear-down tear
down a dead session.

A Proxy-B2BUA does not modify the received header fields such as the To,
From, or Contact, and it only modifies the Via and Record-Route
header fields following the rules in [RFC3261] and its extensions.
If a Proxy-B2BUA can generate in-dialog messages, then it will also
need to modify the CSeq header, header after it has generated its own. A
Proxy-B2BUA neither modifies nor inspects MIME bodies (including
SDP), does not have any awareness of media, will forward any Method method
type, etc.

3.1.2. Signaling-only

A Signaling-only B2BUA is one that operates at the SIP layer but in
ways beyond those of [RFC3261] Proxies, proxies, even for normally forwarded
requests. For example, such a B2BUA might replace the Contact URI,
modify or remove all Via and Record-Route headers, modify the To and
From header fields, modify or inspect specific MIME bodies, etc. No
SIP header field is guaranteed to be copied from the received request
on the UAS side to the generated request on the UAC side.

An example of such a B2BUA would be some form of an Application
Server and a PBX, such as a server which that locally processes REFER
requests and generates new INVITEs on behalf of the REFER's target.
Another example would be an a privacy service proxy [RFC3323] Privacy Service Proxy performing
the 'header' privacy function.

3.1.3. SDP-Modifying Signaling-only

An SDP-Modifying Signaling-only B2BUA is one that operates in the
signaling plane only and is not in the media path, but it does modify
SDP bodies and is thus aware of and understands SDP syntax and
semantics. Some In some cases, some Application Servers and PBXs act in
this role in
some cases, role, for example example, to remove certain codec choices or merge two
media endpoints into one SDP offer.

These B2BUAs don't do anything that changes the path that the media
takes (in particular, they don't insert themselves on the media
path), but they may make SDP changes that affect what is sent on the
media plane.

3.2. Media-plane Signaling/Media Plane B2BUA Roles

A Media-plane signaling/media plane B2BUA is one that operates at both the SIP
and media
planes, planes and not only on SIP messages but also on SDP and
potentially Real-
time the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) / Real Time the Real-Time
Control Protocol (RTCP) [RFC3550] or other media. Such a B2BUA may
or may not replace the Contact URI, modify or remove all Via and
Record-Route headers, modify the To and From header fields, etc. No
SIP header field is guaranteed to be copied from the received request
on the UAS side to the generated request on the UAC side, and SDP
will also be modified.

An example of such a B2BUA would be a Session Border Controller (SBC)
performing the functions defined in [RFC5853], a B2BUA transcoder as
defined in [RFC5370], a rich-ringtone Application Server, or a
recording system. Another example would be an a privacy service proxy
[RFC3323] Privacy
Service Proxy performing the 'session' privacy function.

Note that a Media-plane signaling/media plane B2BUA need not be instantiated in a
single physical system, but it may be decomposed into separate
signaling and media functions.

The Media-plane signaling/media plane B2BUA category is further subdivided into
specific roles as described in this section.

3.2.1. Media-relay Media Relay

A B2BUA which that performs a media-relay role is one that terminates the
media plane at the IP and transport (UDP/TCP) layers on its UAS and
UAC sides, but neither modifies nor restricts which forms of payload
are carried within the packets. Rather, the payload is transparently
copied from one side to the other. Such a role may only support UDP or may not
support only TCP or both, UDP, only TCP, both UDP and TCP, as well as other
transport types or not. Such a
role types. It may also involve policing the IP packets to fit
within a bandwidth
limit, limit or converting from IPv4 to IPV6 IPv6, or vice-versa. vice
versa. This is typically similar to a NAT behavior, except a NAT
operating in both directions on both the source and destination
information; it is often found as the default behavior in SBCs.

3.2.2. Media-aware Media Aware

A B2BUA which that performs a media-aware role is similar to a media- media relay
except that it inspects and potentially modifies the payload carried
in UDP or TCP (as it could be [RFC3550] RTP or RTCP) RTCP [RFC3550]), but it does not
at a codec or higher layer. An example of such a role is an a Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711] SRTP terminator, which does
not need to care about the RTP payload but does care about the RTP
header; or or, a device which that monitors RTCP for QoS information; or or, a
device which multiplexes/de-
multiplexes that multiplexes/demultiplexes RTP and RTCP packets on the
same 5-tuple.

3.2.3. Media-termination Media Termination

A B2BUA which that performs a media-termination role is one that operates
at the media payload layer, such as RTP/RTCP codec or MSRP the Message
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) message layer and higher. Such a role
may only terminate/generate specific RTP media, such as [RFC4733] DTMF packets, dual-tone
multi-frequency (DTMF) packets [RFC4733], or it may convert between
media codecs, codecs or act as a Back-To-Back [RFC4975] Back-to-Back MSRP [RFC4975] agent. This is
the role performed by transcoders, [RFC5366] based conference
servers, servers based on
[RFC5366], etc.

4. Mapping SIP Device Types to B2BUA Roles

Although the B2BUA roles defined previously do not define system
types, as discussed in section Section 3, some discussion of what common
system types perform which defined roles may be appropriate. This
section provides such a 'mapping' for general cases, cases to aid in
understanding of the roles.

4.1. SIP PBXs and Softswitches

SIP-enabled Private Branch eXchanges Exchanges (SIP PBXs) and Softswitches softswitches are
market category terms, terms and are not specified in any standard. In general
general, they can perform every role described in this document at
any given
time, time based on their architecture or local policy. Some are
based on architectures that make them the equivalent of a SIP UAS and
UAC connected with a logical PRI Primary Rate Interface (PRI) loopback;
others are built as a SIP
Proxy proxy core with optional modules to "do
more".

4.2. Application Servers

Application Servers are a broad marketing term, term and are not specified
in any standard in general, although 3GPP the Third Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP) and other organizations specify some specific
Application Server functions and behaviors. Common examples of
Application Servers Server functions are message-waiting
indication (MWI), find-me-follow-me indicators (MWIs),
Find Me/Follow Me services, privacy services, call- call center Automatic
Call Distributor (ACD) services, call screening, and Voice Call
Continuity (VCC) services. Some only operate in the signaling plane
in either Proxy-B2BUA or Signaling- only Signaling-only B2BUA roles; others operate
as full Media-termination B2BUAs, such as when providing Interactive
Voice Recognition (IVR), rich-ringtone rich ringtones, or integrated voicemail
services.

4.3. Session Border Controllers

Session Border Controllers (SBCs) are a market category term, term and are
not specified in any standard. Some of the common functions
performed by SBCs are described in [RFC5853], but in general general, they
can perform every role described in this document at any given time, time
based on local policy. By default, most SBCs are either Media-relay
or Media-
aware B2BUAs, Media-aware B2BUAs and replace the Contact URI, URI; remove the Via and Record-
Route headers,
Record-Route headers; modify the Call-ID, To, From, and various other
headers,
headers; and modify SDP. Some SBCs remove all headers, all bodies,
and reject all Method method types unless explicitly allowed by local
policy; other SBCs pass all such elements through unless explicitly
forbidden by local policy.

4.4. Transcoders

Transcoders perform the function of transcoding one audio or video
media codec type to another, such as G.711 to G.729. As such such, they
perform the Media-termination role, although they may only terminate
media in specific cases of codec mismatch between the two ends.
Although [RFC5369] and [RFC5370] define two types of SIP Transcoders, transcoders,
in practice practice, a popular variant of the [RFC5370] inline conference bridge model
[RFC5370] is to behave as a SIP B2BUA without using the resource-
list mechanism, resource-list
mechanism but rather simply route routing a normal INVITE request through a
B2BUA with a built-in transcoder. SIP Transcoders transcoder architectures are
based on everything from SIP media servers, to
SBCs, servers and SBCs to looped-back
Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) gateways, and thus run the gamut
from replacing only specific headers/bodies and SDP content needed to
perform their function, function to replacing almost all SIP headers and SDP
content. Some transcoders save and remove SDP offers in INVITEs from
the UAC, and wait for an offer in the response from the UAS, similar
to a 3PCC Third Party Call Control (3PCC) model; others just insert
additional codecs in SDP offers and only transcode if the inserted
codec(s) are is selected in the answer.

4.5. Conference Servers

In general Conference Servers general, conference servers do not fall under the term 'B2BUA' "B2BUA" as
defined by this document, since typically they involve multiple SIP
UACs initiating independent SIP sessions to the single conference
server
UAS. However, a conference server supporting [RFC5366], whereby the
received INVITE triggers the conference focus UAS to initiate
multiple INVITEs as a UAC, would be in a Media-termination B2BUA role
when performing that function.

4.6. P-CSCF and IBCF Functions

The Proxy-Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF) and the
Interconnection Border Control Function (IBCF) are functions defined by 3GPP
[IMS] standards, and when coupled with the IMS media-plane IP Multimedia Subsystems
(IMS) media plane gateways (IMS Access Gateway IMS-AGW, (AGW), Transition
Gateway TrGW, etc.) (TrGW), etc.), they typically form a logical Media-relay or
Media-aware B2BUA role.

4.7. S-CSCF Function

The Serving-Call Session Control Function (S-CSCF) is a function defined by 3GPP
[IMS] standards, standards and typically follows a Proxy-B2BUA role.

5. Security Considerations

Security risks are specific to each type of B2BUA, so little can be
said in general. Of course, adding extra systems in the
communication path creates extra points of attack, reduces or
eliminates the ability to perform end to end end-to-end encryption, decreases
the privacy of SIP communications, and complicates trust models.
Thus, every B2BUA design requires particular attention to security
analysis.

A few general points can be made:

1. The B2BUA processing of SDP and media packets is an impediment to
the deployment of end-to-end SRTP, SRTP and reduces the ability to
deploy new, stronger forms of SRTP key exchange.

2. The ability for B2BUAs to modify any SIP header field value and
body impacts the ability to deploy SIP Identity identity and message
integrity.

3. The management and configuration mechanisms of B2BUAs are a
tempting point of attack, attack and must be strongly defended.

Further security considerations related to the functionality
described in this document are addressed in the relevant references.

6. IANA Considerations

This document makes no request of IANA.

7. Informative References

[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.

[RFC3323] Peterson, J., "A Privacy Mechanism for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3323, November 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.

[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004.

[RFC4733] Schulzrinne, H. and T. Taylor, "RTP Payload for DTMF
Digits, Telephony Tones, and Telephony Signals", RFC 4733,
December 2006.

[RFC4975] Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.

[RFC5366] Camarillo, G. and A. Johnston, "Conference Establishment
Using Request-Contained Lists in the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5366, October 2008.

[RFC5369] Camarillo, G., "Framework for Transcoding with the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5369, October 2008.

[RFC5370] Camarillo, G., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Conference Bridge Transcoding Model", RFC 5370, October
2008.

[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.

[IMS] 3GPP, "IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Stage 2, 3GPP TS
23.228", Version 12.2.0, September 2013.

Authors' Addresses

Hadriel Kaplan
Oracle

Email:

EMail: hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com

Victor Pascual
Quobis

Email:

EMail: victor.pascual@quobis.com