Globally Identifiable Number (GIN) Registration Adam Roach draft-martini-roach-gin-01 IETF 77 – Anaheim, CA, USA March 22, 2010.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MARTINI WG Interim draft-ietf-martini-reqs-04 John Elwell Hadriel Kaplan (editors)
Advertisements

MARTINI WG Interim draft-kaplan-martini-with-olive-00 Hadriel Kaplan.
SIP Interconnect Guidelines draft-hancock-sip-interconnect-guidelines-02 David Hancock, Daryl Malas.
Extensible Manet Auto-configuration Protocol (EMAP) draft-ros-autoconf-emap-02.txt Pedro M. Ruiz Francisco J. Ros March, 2006 Dallas, USA 65 th IETF.
Rfc4474bis-01 IETF 89 (London) STIR WG Jon & Cullen.
L3VPN WG2012-Jul-301 MVPN/BGP Support for Customers That Use mLDP RFCs 6513/6514: support Multicast VPN Service for customers that use PIM provide extensive.
GRUU Jonathan Rosenberg Cisco Systems
NAT (Network Address Translator) Atif Karamat In the name of God the most merciful and the most compassionate.
IPv6 Mobility David Bush. Correspondent Node Operation DEF: Correspondent node is any node that is trying to communicate with a mobile node. This node.
GRUU Jonathan Rosenberg Cisco Systems. sip and sips General problem –What should gruu say about relationship of sips to gruu? Specific questions –If the.
GRUU Mechanism Jonathan Rosenberg. Status Draft-rosenberg-sipping-gruu-reqs-01 defines the problem Draft-rosenberg-sip-gruu submitted with proposed solution.
Request History – Solution Mary Barnes SIP WG Meeting IETF-57 draft-ietf-sip-history-info-00.txt.
IETF-78, July Alert-Info URNs for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-liess-dispatch-alert-info-urns-02 L. Liess, R. Jesske, D. Alexeitsev.
NETCONF Server and RESTCONF Server Configuration Models draft-ietf-netconf-server-model-06 NETCONF WG IETF #92 Dallas, TX, USA.
Bootstrap and Autoconfiguration (DHCP)
Framework & Requirements for an Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Multi-Service Networks ANCP WG IETF 70 – Vancouver draft-ietf-ancp-framework-04.txt.
Draft-gu-ppsp-protocol-00 PPSP Session IETF 77, Anaheim March 22, 2010.
-framework Brian Rosen. -11 version deals with IESG comments All comment resolved one way or another One open issue – spec(t)
Call Control with SIP Brian Elliott, Director of Engineering, NMS.
Framework & Requirements for an Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Multi-Service Networks ANCP WG IETF 71 – Philadelphia draft-ietf-ancp-framework-05.txt.
Draft-rosen-ecrit-emergency- framework-00 Brian Rosen NeuStar CPa
July 16, Diameter EAP Application (draft-ietf-aaa-eap-02.txt) on behalf of...
Author(s) Politehnica University of Bucharest Automatic Control and Computers Faculty Computer Science Department Implementation of GRUU in SIP Vladut-Stefan.
CP-a Emergency call stage 2 requirements - A presentation of the requirements from 3GPP TS Keith Drage.
SIPPING IETF 57 Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
4395bis irireg Tony Hansen, Larry Masinter, Ted Hardie IETF 82, Nov 16, 2011.
CSC 600 Internetworking with TCP/IP Unit 7: IPv6 (ch. 33) Dr. Cheer-Sun Yang Spring 2001.
SIP INFO Event Framework (draft-kaplan-sip-info-events-00) Hadriel Kaplan Christer Holmberg 70th IETF, Vancouver, Canada.
SIP working group IETF#70 Essential corrections Keith Drage.
Rfc4474bis-01 IETF 90 (Toronto) STIR WG Jon. First principles (yet again) Separating the work into two buckets: 1) Signaling – What fields are signed,
1 IETF 88 (Vancouver) November 6, 2013 Cullen Jennings V3.
Sua-04.ppt / 10 December 2000 / John A. Loughney SCCP User Adaptation Layer 49 th IETF Meeting: San Diego, CA draft-ietf-sigtran-sua-04.txt John A. Loughney.
1 IETF 76 Hiroshima DISPATCH WG SIP Alert-Info URN draft-liess-dispatch-alert-info-urns-00 Denis Alexeitsev Laura Liess
Caller Prefs and Friends Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Making SIP NAT Friendly Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
SIP Extensions for Network-Asserted Caller Identity and Privacy within Trusted Networks Flemming Andreasen W. Marshall, K. K. Ramakrishnan,
Abierman-netconf-mar07 1 NETCONF WG 68 th IETF Prague, CZ March 19, 2007.
IETF66 DIME WG John Loughney, Hannes Tschofenig and Victor Fajardo 3588-bis: Current Issues.
VERMOUTH for MARTINI SIP MARTINI Variant of 'Event-package for Registrations‘ for Managed Open-ended Username Target Handling (VERMOUTH) draft-kaplan-martini-vermouth-00.
- 1 -P. Kyzivatdraft-sipping-gruu-reg-event-00 Reg Event Package Extensions draft-sipping-gruu-reg-event-00 IETF64 Nov-2005.
IETF68 DIME WG Open Issues for RFC3588bis Victor Fajardo (draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-02.txt)
A Framework for Session Initiation Protocol User Agent Profile Delivery (draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-11) SIPPING – IETF 68 Mar 19, 2007 Sumanth.
Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) IETF-92 Dallas, March 26, 2015 draft-ietf-tram-stunbis Marc Petit-Huguenin, Gonzalo Salgueiro.
Open-plan Local-number Identifier Values for Enterprises (OLIVE) draft-kaplan-martini-with-olive-02 Hadriel Kaplan.
March 20, 2007BLISS BOF IETF-681 Requirements and Implementation Options for the Multiple Line Appearance Feature using the Session Initiation Protocol.
GRUU Jonathan Rosenberg Cisco Systems. Changes in -06 Editorial as a result of RFC-ED early copy experiment.
Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt RTSP draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2396bis-10 Magnus Westerlund Co-auhtors: Henning Schulzrinne, Rob Lanphier,
Well known site local unicast addresses to communicate with recursive DNS servers draft-ietf-ipv6-dns-discovery-07.txt
1 Header Compression over IPsec (HCoIPsec) Emre Ertekin, Christos Christou, Rohan Jasani {
July 28, 2009BLISS WG IETF-751 Shared Appearance of a SIP AOR draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-03 Alan Johnston Mohsen Soroushnejad Venkatesh Venkataramanan.
SIP Events: Changes and Open Issues IETF 50 / SIP Working Group Adam Roach
Call Completion using BFCP draft-roach-sipping-callcomp-bfcp IETF 67 – San Diego November 7, 2006.
History-Info header and Support of target-uri Solution Requirements Mary Barnes Francois Audet SIPCORE.
GIN with Literal AoRs for SIP in SSPs (GLASS) draft-kaplan-martini-glass-00 Hadriel Kaplan.
GRUU Jonathan Rosenberg Cisco Systems. Main Changes Up front discussion of URI properties Opaque URI parameter for constructing GRUU Procedure for EP.
K. Salah1 Security Protocols in the Internet IPSec.
Andrew Allen ROUTING OUT OF DIALOG REQUESTS draft-allen-dispatch-routing-out-of-dialog-request-01 Dispatch IETF 92 March 23 rd 2015.
Virtual Local Area Networks In Security By Mark Reed.
User-Written Functions
XCON WG IETF-64 Meeting XCON Framework Overview & Issues
draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-00 Ben Campbell
AAA and AAAS URI Miguel A. Garcia draft-garcia-dime-aaa-uri-00.txt
NAT State Synchronization using SCSP draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-01
Host of Troubles : Multiple Host Ambiguities in HTTP Implementations
Requirements and Implementation Options for the Multiple Line Appearance Feature using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) draft-johnston-bliss-mla-req-00.
draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-02 status update
Verstat Related Best Practices
Working Group Draft for TCPCLv4
Updates to Draft Specification for DTN TCPCLv4
STIR WG IETF-99 PASSPorT Extension for Resource-Priority Authorization (draft-ietf-stir-rph-00) July, 2017 Ray P. Singh, Martin Dolly, Subir Das, and An.
Presentation transcript:

Globally Identifiable Number (GIN) Registration Adam Roach draft-martini-roach-gin-01 IETF 77 – Anaheim, CA, USA March 22, 2010

Assumptions Driving Design The PBX cannot be assumed to be assigned a static IP address. No DNS entry can be relied upon to consistently resolve to the IP address of the PBX.

Overview of Mechanism Adds new parameter for Contact URI, to indicate that it represents several actual contacts. Registrar semantically expands this special Contact into one contact for each DID number assigned to the PBX; stores in Location Service. Proxy/Registrar exhibits normal Proxy/Registrar behavior

Changes Since -00 Added Proxy-Require Simplified Contact and GRUU URI formats by removing “ () ” and “ * ” syntax Further detail on Public GRUU procedures Additional Temp GRUU procedure (minting Temp GRUUs based on Public GRUUs) Added example for “Wumpus 9” (“Use Case 9” in previous terminology).

Simpler Contact Syntax REGISTER message now contains Contact URI with no user portion. MARTINI Contact URI still contains “bnc” parameter to mark it as requiring special handling SSP inserts called extension into user portion of registered MARTINI contact, removes “bnc” parameter, and follows normal proxy/registrar procedures

Public GRUU Changes Removed “ * ” from “gr” parameter; PBX instead uses new “sg” parameter to add its own device identifying token. Previous text did not completely analyze SSP server behavior: application of normal GRUU procedures at SSP would lose PBX-specific device identifiers. New procedure defines slight change at SSP: “gr” parameter is copied from GRUU to registered contact.

Additional Temp GRUU Procedure Created by PBX by starting with the Public GRUU it received from the SSP, and (a) removing user portion, and (b) adding an opaque “sg” parameter. Note that, per the GRUU RFC, every REGISTER message between the PBX and its terminal generates a new Temp GRUU – this means each will have a new “sg” parameter. The SSP will route associated requests to the PBX based on the “gr” parameter. Self-made GRUUs remain an option, require no SSP support.

Example 3

Example 9

Open Issue: user=phone Current draft doesn’t treat “user=phone” as special. It simply says that parameters from a MARTINI Contact URI must be copied to the URI stores in the location service. This implies that, if a PBX expects “user=phone” on incoming requests, it needs to include “user=phone” on its registered Contact.

Open Issue: user=phone (options) Several options exist: 1. Keep mechanism as-is (i.e., let PBX choose whether it needs “user=phone”) 2. Forbid “user=phone” on “bnc” URIs, and specify that the SSP must add “user=phone” 3. Forbid “user=phone” altogether Proposal: leave as-is, let PBX indicate whether “user=phone” is needed.

Open Issue: List of Phone Numbers? General direction on list seems to be that neither the register nor its response needs to contain list of DIDs –Objections have focused exclusively around provisioning issues, not behavior of system at registration time. Omission of DIDs in REGISTER makes it difficult and/or impossible for intermediate nodes to know which AORs might be related to this registration. Would be trivial to add new header field or contact parameter to indicate number ranges. Do we really want to paint ourselves into this corner?

Other Pending Items #7 and #8 : idnits and editorial #9: Complete registration for new IANA- registered protocol items #10: Analyze GIN versus requirements document #11 - #13: Need (external?) security analysis of interaction between Path, Outbound, and Service Route with multiple AORs in a single REGISTER #14: Need to complete, fix examples (what level of detail do we need?)