ICE, Turn, Stun and Security Session: D2-1 Tsahi Levent-Levi Director, Product Management Amdocs

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The leader in session border control for trusted, first class interactive communications.
Advertisements

SIP, Firewalls and NATs Oh My!. SIP Summit SIP, Firewalls and NATs, Oh My! Getting SIP Through Firewalls Firewalls Typically.
Fall VoN 2000 SIP Servers SIP Servers: A Buyers Guide Jonathan Rosenberg Chief Scientist.
1 TURN Server for WebRTC in the Firewall © 2014 Ingate Systems AB Prepared for:Ingates SIP Trunking, UC and WebRTC Seminars ITEXPO January 2014 Miami By:Karl.
1 WebRTC in the Enterprise Presentation, Status, Demo © 2014 Ingate Systems AB Prepared for:WebRTC Pavilion ITEXPO August 2014 Las Vegas By:Karl Erik Ståhl.
1 What’s Next For SIP Trunking? Carriers Enabling and Bringing WebRTC Features With Their Trunks © 2015 Ingate Systems AB Prepared for:Ingate SIP Trunking,
© 2013 Ingate Systems AB 1 Prepared for:ITEXPO Conference, Las-Vegas, August 2013 By: Steven Johnson President Ingate Systems Inc. Also.
1 WebRTC in the Enterprise Presentation, Status, Demo © 2015 Ingate Systems AB Prepared for:Ingate SIP Trunking, UC and WebRTC Seminars ITEXPO January.
Implementation Lessons using WebRTC in Asterisk
UC403: Lync & Network Interaction
©2012 ClearOne Communications. Confidential and proprietary. COLLABORATE ® Video Conferencing Networking Basics.
Security in VoIP Networks Juan C Pelaez Florida Atlantic University Security in VoIP Networks Juan C Pelaez Florida Atlantic University.
WebRTC & SIP E-SBC PBX Companion
SIP and IMS Enabled Residential Gateway Sergio Romero Telefónica I+D Jan Önnegren Ericsson AB Alex De Smedt Thomson Telecom.
1 © 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Making NATs work for Online Gaming and VoIP Dr. Cullen Jennings
The NAT/Firewall Problem! And the benefits of our cure… Prepared for:Summer VON Europe 2003 SIP Forum By: Karl Erik Ståhl President Intertex Data AB Chairman.
1 © 2005 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential Session Number Presentation_ID STUN, TURN and ICE Cary Fitzgerald.
Karl Stahl CEO/CTO Ingate Systems Ingate’s SBCs do more than POTSoIP SIP. They were developed.
Enabling SIP to the Enterprise Steve Johnson, Ingate Systems Security: How SIP Improves Telephony.
1 Enabling WebRTC in the Enterprise A) How Can WebRTC Enhance the Enterprise PBX/UC Solution? B) Will SIP Trunking E-SBCs Include WebRTC Support? C)Can.
Beyond POTS Replacement Is SIP Trunking a step on that route? © 2009 Intertex Data AB 1 Prepared for:INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference Ingate’s SIP Trunking.
1 Network Architecture and Design Advanced Issues in Internet Protocol (IP) IPv4 Network Address Translation (NAT) IPV6 IP Security (IPsec) Mobile IP IP.
K. Salah 1 Chapter 31 Security in the Internet. K. Salah 2 Figure 31.5 Position of TLS Transport Layer Security (TLS) was designed to provide security.
Application layer (continued) Week 4 – Lecture 2.
ICE Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft. Issue 1: Port Restricted Flow This case does not work well with ICE right now Race condition –Works if message 13.
SIP, NAT, Firewall SIP NAT Firewall How to Traversal NAT/Firewall for SIP.
Intertex Data AB, Sweden Talking NATs & Firewalls Prepared for:Voice On the Net, Spring 2002 By: Karl Erik Ståhl President Intertex Data AB Chairman Ingate.
5/3/2006 tlpham VOIP/Security 1 Voice Over IP and Security By Thao L. Pham CS 525.
RTP Multiplexing draft-rosenberg-rtcweb-rtpmux Jonathan + {Rosenberg, Lennox}
WebRTC Demo, Miami, May Ingate’s SBCs do more than POTS-like SIP. They were developed for standards-compliant end-to-end multimedia SIP quality.
Application Layer. Applications A program or group of programs designed for end users. A program or group of programs designed for end users. Software.
SIP and NAT Dr. Jonathan Rosenberg Cisco Fellow. What is NAT? Network Address Translation (NAT) –Creates address binding between internal private and.
IT Expo SECURITY Scott Beer Director, Product Support Ingate
1 Enabling WebRTC in the Enterprise A) How Can WebRTC Enhance the PBX/UC Solution? B) Will SIP Trunking E-SBCs Include WebRTC Support? C)Can Carriers Provide.
1 Enabling WebRTC in the Enterprise A) How Can WebRTC Enhance the PBX/UC Solution? B) Will SIP Trunking E-SBCs Include WebRTC Support? C)Can Carriers Provide.
WebRTC Demo, Atlanta June Ingate’s SBCs do more than POTSoIP SIP. They were developed for standard compliant end-to-end multimedia SIP connectivity.
Karl Stahl CEO/CTO Ingate Systems Ingate’s SBCs do more than POTSoIP SIP. They were developed.
Polycom Conference Firewall Solutions. 2 The use of Video Conferencing Is Rapidly Growing More and More people are adopting IP conferencing Audio and.
SIP Explained Gary Audin Delphi, Inc. Sponsored by
SIP? NAT? NOT! Traversing the Firewall for SIP Call Completion Steven Johnson President, Ingate Systems Inc.
IP Ports and Protocols used by H.323 Devices Liane Tarouco.
Quintum Confidential and Proprietary 1 Quintum Technologies, Inc. Session Border Controller and VoIP Devices Behind Firewalls Tim Thornton, CTO.
TCP/IP Protocol Suite 1 Chapter 25 Upon completion you will be able to: Multimedia Know the characteristics of the 3 types of services Understand the methods.
Crossing firewalls Liane Tarouco Leandro Bertholdo RNP POP/RS.
Security, NATs and Firewalls Ingate Systems. Basics of SIP Security.
Voice over IP B 林與絜.
Securing Open Source Enterprise VoIP Christian Stredicke/snom.
Dealing with NATs and Firewalls! Prepared for:Fall VON 2003 Boston By: Karl Erik Ståhl President Intertex Data AB Chairman Ingate Systems AB
5 Firewalls in VoIP Selected Topics in Information Security – Bazara Barry.
SIP Trunking As a Managed Service Why an E-SBC Matters By: Alon Cohen, CTO Phone.com.
1 WebRTC Introduction and Overview © 2015 Ingate Systems AB Prepared for:Ingate SIP Trunking, UC and WebRTC Seminars WebRTC Introduction and Overview ITEXPO.
PKE Consulting Some slides from the WebRTC Conference May 2015.
1 WebRTC in the Enterprise © 2015 Ingate Systems AB Prepared for:Ingate SIP Trunking, UC and WebRTC Seminars WebRTC in the Enterprise ITEXPO October 2015.
RTCWEB Considerations for NATs, Firewalls and HTTP proxies draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall- considerations A. Hutton, T. Stach, J. Uberti.
1 What’s Next For SIP Trunking? Carriers Enabling and Bringing WebRTC Features With Their Trunks © 2015 Ingate Systems AB Prepared for:Ingate SIP Trunking,
Unleashing the Power of IP Communications™ Calling Across The Boundaries Mike Burkett, VP Products September 2002.
1 WebRTC in the Call Center and Number Replacement © 2015 Ingate Systems AB Prepared for:Ingate SIP Trunking, UC and WebRTC Seminars WebRTC in the.
© 2006 Intertex Data AB 1 Connect your LAN to the SIP world, while keeping your existing firewall*! The IX67 LAN SIParator (Part of the SIP Switch option.
Johan Delimon 26/04/2016 BE-COM E-COMMUNICATIONS EVENT THE INNER WORKINGS OF SKYPE FOR BUSINESS: NETWORKING.
Voice over internet protocol
WebRTC enabled multimedia conferencing and collaboration solution
Enabling WebRTC in the Enterprise
9/18/2018.
PKE Consulting 2014.
11/20/2018.
WebRTC for Bria Khris Kendrick
WebRTC & SIP E-SBC PBX Companion
What WebRTC Does NOT Do:
What’s Next For SIP Trunking? WebRTC in the Enterprise
Protecting Yourself in a WebRTC World
Presentation transcript:

ICE, Turn, Stun and Security Session: D2-1 Tsahi Levent-Levi Director, Product Management Amdocs

Session Presenters Glen Gerhard – VP Product Management – Sansay Karl Stahl – CEO/CTO – Ingate Systems Richard Blakely – CEO – Influxis / XirSys

3

Glen Gerhard VP Product Management Sansay

Interactive Connectivity Est. Builds a candidate list for endpoints to use as available Uses direct path, STUN or TURN paths Direct is called Host Path Outside NAT path is Server TURN is called Relay Path Candidates provided by application server for each path Compatible with SIP endpoints at media layer Algorithm decided on candidate directives TURN Server NAT STUN Client Relay Host Server a=candidate:1 1 UDP typ host a=candidate:2 1 UDP typ srflx raddr rport 8338 a=candidate:3 1 UDP typ relay

STUN Process Endpoints generate special signaling packets for STUN Protocol NAT maps STUN packets per normal, seen at Server This information passed back to Client And then passed Client to Application Server Provided to far end device for external relay Server Candidates usually #2 after Host Can be blocked by NAT/Firewall depending on type Corporate firewalls often cause issues Firewalls becoming more restrictive. Percentage of calls that fail varies (10-15% +/- ?) STUN Server NAT STUN Client Bind Response: Sending lP:UDP

TURN Difficulties Application system does not control TURN server directly Creates a risk for DOS at media layer Encryption keys not known by TURN server So cannot be used for SRTP-RTP translation So cannot be used for transcoding Performance of media layer is not reported on call legs May be able to get end-end data, but not per call leg data ICE candidate checks can add to PDD on sessions Trickle ICE is useful but call set up is still delayed

More Secure Approach 8 Application Server Provide endpoints with one SDP Use media relay to secure and ensure path RTC Client RTC Client HTTPS Relay Point Media

API with Media Control Application controls media relay ports directly Full control of relay and security on ports Encryption keys can be passed for SRTP decryption Relay can now be used for transcoding SRTP to RTP; Opus to G711, G.722 Enables advanced applications such as streaming, speech req, conferencing and recording Permits CALEA function to be centralized ICE candidate can provide one candidate Reduce PDD and improve reliability Fault tolerant designs are possible with HA hardware

Media Relay Trade Offs The application needs to understand the API Build API to be app friendly with JSEP or ROAP Media relay adds bandwidth at the relay site Adds cost to network build out (esp with video) Most networks today expect this B/W usage B/W costs low at colo sites, not true on local loop Off net calls to SIP will generally require media relay What feature set does your application require? What price enhanced security and ensured connectivity?

Karl Stahl CEO/CTO Ingate Systems Ingate’s SBCs do more than POTSoIP SIP. They were developed for standard compliant end-to-end multimedia SIP connectivity everywhere. WebRTC is just aligned – Ingate adds Q-TURN telepresence quality and the WebRTC & SIP PBX Companion for the enterprise UC “social network”. Merged Intertex Data AB and Ingate Systems AB

ICE Means There is no WebRTC-SBC ICE was developed and standardized for SIP, but not used much for SIP… WebRTC has no SBC-alternative, it is end-to- end (encrypted) WebRTC Prescribes ICE, which uses STUN & TURN, negotiated in SDP. Best: WebRTC is end-to-end and does not encourage application specific networks Worst: The firewalls are unaware of what is being traversed – Or isn’t it?

ICE is Complex - But it Will Work ICE is complex, but yes, I believe it will work because there are only a handful of browsers. Implementations simply have to be compliant and compatible! Concerns? Local TURN servers required – Or delays? Slow – Trickle ICE? Bigger and bigger SDP – Watch out! Does not penetrate restrictive enterprise firewalls. Tunneling over open TCP ports is no quality option Security is otherwise OK. There is Excellent Privacy Quality through firewalls unaware of the traffic type? UDP is required for real-time. Open TCP ports 80 (http) or 443 (https) are no good. Quality?

From POTS to Telepresence – A Gigantic Step WebRTC has the potential of telepresence quality: Opus HiFi sound and VP8 / H.264 HD video Layer 4 QoS: UDP over TCP is not sufficient It is NOT “Just About Bandwidth” Data crowded networks Surf, , file transfer fill the pipes Carriers concerned – do advanced networks But out comes RJ11 = POTS Quality… Still, Internet has the largest bandwidth We just need to Prioritize - Level 3 QoS Pre- AM Radio 3,5 kHz to 20 kHz audio and 3,5 Mbps video RJ11

A Novel View on ICE – Q-TURN Knock-knock; Give my media a Quality Pipe Regard ICE as a request for real-time traffic through the Firewall. Interpret the STUN & TURN signals in the Firewall Have the STUN/TURN server functionality IN the Firewall and setup the media flows under control Security is back in the right place - The firewall is in charge of what is traversing Enterprise firewall can still be restrictive Q-TURN Q-TURN Enables QoS and More: Prioritization and Traffic Shaping Diffserve or RVSP QoS over the Net Authentication (in STUN and TURN) Accounting – Payload Type is seen

Q-TURN as the Carrier Broadband Delivery Sell a “WebRTC-Ready” Access! Why only deliver Best Effort Data? Quality Traffic - prioritized real- time traffic within the same pipe - is highly valuable, but cost no more bandwidth to produce! OTT can be more than data delivery. Telepresence in your pocket! Q-TURN at the Carrier Demarcation Points Mobile (replace the DPI behind the Cell Tower) Enterprise and SMB delivery Residential delivery – Fits embedded CPEs SIP Connect 1.1 Internet+

Ingate’s Live Demonstration at Display Table 29 Q-TURN Relies on Standardized ICE It is for WebRTC and other protocols using ICE Quality for End-to-end WebRTC Even for SIP if ICE is used (But our product also includes a SIP proxy based E-SBC) Transcoding is different – That is a Gateway function Ingate’s WebRTC – SIP Gateway is a PBX / UC Companion based in Ingate’s SIP Trunking E-SBC It brings WebRTC into the “PBX / UC Social Network” infrastructure LAN Company Web Server SIP WS media

Richard Blakely CEO Influxis / XirSys XirSys provides IaaS for WebRTC including TURN server hosting, professional support, client ecosystem, and much more.

WebRTC Streaming Basics Client A STUN SERVER Client B P2P

TURN Basics Provides relays for data transfer between participants using NAT traversal Client A TURN SERVER Client B

Streaming Basics Provides one-to-many and many-to-many transmission of data Client A STREAMING SERVER Client B Client C Client D Client E

TURN for Streaming Client A TURN SERVER Client B Record Media STREAMING SERVER Client B Client C Client D Client E Innovation Layer, Transcode & Package

Find Out More Visit us at: BETA testers, Direct

Questions 24 1.When is a TURN server required? 2.What Firewall issues cannot be circumvented? 3.Do these techniques compromise security and is the proposed firewall combined with the TURN server a solution to that? 4.Do they allow security to be bypassed? 5.What kind of Quality improvements could be added considering the TURN server as part of the firewall? 6.What are the performance and latency issues of a STUN or TURN implementation?