SIPeerior Technologies A superior way to connect Emerging IETF Standards Work on P2PSIP David A. Bryan.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
웹 서비스 개요.
Advertisements

SIP, Firewalls and NATs Oh My!. SIP Summit SIP, Firewalls and NATs, Oh My! Getting SIP Through Firewalls Firewalls Typically.
SIP and Instant Messaging. SIP Summit SIP and Instant Messaging What Does Presence Have to Do With SIP? How to Deliver.
Fall VoN 2000 SIP for IP Communications Jonathan Rosenberg Chief Scientist.
David Martin for DAML-S Coalition 05/08/2003 OWL-S: Bringing Services to the Semantic Web David Martin SRI International
Distributed Data Processing
P2P data retrieval DHT (Distributed Hash Tables) Partially based on Hellerstein’s presentation at VLDB2004.
Internetworking II: MPLS, Security, and Traffic Engineering
Russ Housley IETF Chair 23 July 2012 Introduction to the IETF Standards Process.
Addressing the P2P Bootstrap Problem for Small Overlay Networks David Wolinsky, Pierre St. Juste, P. Oscar Boykin, and Renato Figueiredo ACIS P2P Group.
Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Peer-to-Peer SIP David Bryan July 27, Affiliation(s) p2psip.org.
Scope Discussion Seems to be a good deal of interest in moving this toward a working group If we want to work toward this, we need to have a clearly defined.
Draft-bryan-sipping-p2p David Bryan IETF 63, Paris August 3, 2005.
Extensible Networking Platform IWAN 2005 Extensible Network Configuration and Communication Framework Todd Sproull and John Lockwood
A New Computing Paradigm. Overview of Web Services Over 66 percent of respondents to a 2001 InfoWorld magazine poll agreed that "Web services are likely.
A Study on Mobile P2P Systems Hongyu Li. Outline  Introduction  Characteristics of P2P  Architecture  Mobile P2P Applications  Conclusion.
1CS 6401 Peer-to-Peer Networks Outline Overview Gnutella Structured Overlays BitTorrent.
P2P Application Classes and the IETF What do we have? : What are we missing? David Bryan P2PSIP WG co-chair Polycom July 28, 2011.
IETF P2P Mechanisms Wes Eddy / TSV AD MTI Systems TSVAREA IETF 81 – Quebec City, July 2011.
OAuth/UMA for ACE 24 th March 2015 draft-maler-ace-oauth-uma-00.txt Eve Maler, Erik Wahlström, Samuel Erdtman, Hannes Tschofenig.
Wireless Ad Hoc VoIP Thesis by: Patrick Stuedi & Gustavo Alonso Presentation by: Anil Kumar Marukala & Syed Khaja Najmuddin Ahmed.
David A. Bryan, PPSP Workshop, Beijing, China, June 17th and 18th 2010 Tracker Protocol Proposal.
PPSP Tracker Protocol draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol PPSP WG IETF 82 Taipei Rui Cruz (presenter) Mário Nunes, Yingjie Gu, Jinwei Xia, David Bryan, João.
P2PSIP Charter Proposal Many people helped write this charter…
 Introduction  VoIP  P2P Systems  Skype  SIP  Skype - SIP Similarities and Differences  Conclusion.
The Computer for the 21 st Century Mark Weiser – XEROX PARC Presented By: Mihail Ionescu.
Tanenbaum & Van Steen, Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms, 2e, (c) 2007 Prentice-Hall, Inc. All rights reserved Chapter 2 ARCHITECTURES.
Peer to Peer Research survey TingYang Chang. Intro. Of P2P Computers of the system was known as peers which sharing data files with each other. Build.
Networks – Network Architecture Network architecture is specification of design principles (including data formats and procedures) for creating a network.
Scalability Don McGregor Research Associate MOVES Institute
P2P SIP Names & Security Cullen Jennings
1 Proposal for BENCHMARKING SIP NETWORKING DEVICES draft-poretsky-sip-bench-term-01.txt draft-poretsky-sip-bench-meth-00.txt Co-authors are Scott Poretsky.
David A. Bryan, PPSP Workshop, Beijing, China, June 17th and 18th 2010 PPSP Protocol Considerations.
| E. Marocco, G. Canal Lucent, 2006, 26 th October P2PSIP: Interworking Enrico Marocco Research Engineer
SIPREC Conference Recording (draft-kyzivat-siprec-conference-use-cases-01) IETF 89, March 7, 2014 Authors: Michael Yan, Paul Kyzivat, Simon Romano.
1 DHCP Authentication Discussion INTAREA meeting, 70th IETF Vancouver, Canada Jari Arkko and Ralph Droms.
Interworking between P2PSIP Overlays and IMS Networks: Why? How?
MobileMAN Internal meetingHelsinki, June 8 th 2004 NETikos activity in MobileMAN project Veronica Vanni NETikos S.p.A.
1 Multimedia Services Service provider Service client Service registry Publish Find/discovery Bind Multimedia Services Framework and architecture.
Advanced Computer Networks Topic 2: Characterization of Distributed Systems.
Peer-to-Peer Name Service (P2PNS) Ingmar Baumgart Institute of Telematics, Universität Karlsruhe IETF 70, Vancouver.
Université du Québec École de technologie supérieure Department of software and IT engineering Real-time multi-user transcoding for push to talk over cellular.
Interdomain multicast routing with IPv6 Stig Venaas University of Southampton Jerome Durand RENATER Mickael Hoerdt University Louis Pasteur - LSIIT.
Interdomain IPv6 multicast Stig Venaas UNINETT. PIM-SM and Rendezvous Points Interdomain multicast routing is usually done with a protocol called PIM-SM.
Distributed Information Systems. Motivation ● To understand the problems that Web services try to solve it is helpful to understand how distributed information.
Mario D’Silva National Technology Specialists Unified Communications UNC307.
A Membership Management Protocol for Mobile P2P Networks Mohamed Karim SBAI, Emna SALHI, Chadi BARAKAT.
SIP Directions at Microsoft Gurdeep Singh Pall General Manager Live Communications Group Microsoft Corporation SIP Conference Paris, Jan 21 st 2004.
The mandate of this working group is to facilitate effective service interoperability utilizing SIP in heterogeneous network environments as noted below.
Jabber Technical Overview Presenter: Ming-Wei Lin.
A Cooperative SIP Infrastructure for Highly Reliable Telecommunication Services BY Sai kamal neeli AVINASH THOTA.
Making SIP NAT Friendly Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Protocol Requirements draft-bryan-p2psip-requirements-00.txt D. Bryan/SIPeerior-editor S. Baset/Columbia University M. Matuszewski/Nokia H. Sinnreich/Adobe.
Interactive Connectivity Establishment : ICE
Peer-to-Peer Systems: An Overview Hongyu Li. Outline  Introduction  Characteristics of P2P  Algorithms  P2P Applications  Conclusion.
November 2005IETF 641 Interconnect SIP networks using P2P SIP Marc Bailly
PCE 64 th IETF PCE Policy Architecture draft-berger-pce-policy-architecture-00.txt Lou Berger Igor Bryskin Dimitri Papadimitriou.
March P2PSIP Routing Discussion (“Routing: what does it look like?) Spencer Dawkins IETF 70 – December 2007 Vancouver, British.
Web Services Blake Schernekau March 27 th, Learning Objectives Understand Web Services Understand Web Services Figure out SOAP and what it is used.
P2P Networking: Freenet Adriane Lau November 9, 2004 MIE456F.
WREC Working Group IETF 49, San Diego Co-Chairs: Mark Nottingham Ian Cooper WREC Working Group.
SIPREC Conference Recording (draft-kyzivat-siprec-conference-use-cases-00) IETF 87, November 4, 2013 Authors: Michael Yan, Paul Kyzivat, Simon Romano.
SOSIMPLE: A Serverless, Standards- based, P2P SIP Communication System David A. Bryan and Bruce B. Lowekamp College of William and Mary Cullen Jennings.
Innovations in P2P Communications David A. Bryan College of William and Mary April 11, 2006 Advisor: Bruce B. Lowekamp.
Draft-bryan-sipping-p2p-usecases-00 David A. Bryan Eunsoo Shim Bruce B. Lowekamp.
Peer to peer Internet telephony challenges, status and trend
Peer-to-peer SIP Ad-hoc meeting
draft-bryan-sipping-p2p
Peer-to-peer SIP Ad-hoc meeting
Presentation transcript:

SIPeerior Technologies A superior way to connect Emerging IETF Standards Work on P2PSIP David A. Bryan

Outline What is P2PSIP vs. Client Server SIP? Work done to date in the IETF What will the new working group do? What are the big challenges and questions?

Client/Server Session In a Client/Server session, two Peers must use a central server to communicate

P2P Session In a Peer-to-Peer session, when two Peers communicate, a few other Peers, rather than a central server, help complete the call

Why use P2P? Infrastructure independence –No central servers or administration needed –Don’t need connectivity to Internet –Scalable - new Peers bring more resources! Simple discovery and setup –Peers find each other Privacy –No need for information between nearby peers to flow offsite. Hashing of DHT can enhance privacy for some cases.

Why P2PSIP? Widely established protocol –Standards based, interact with others –Compatibility with existing equipment –Reuse existing software components –Many problems already solved by community Can simply use proven solutions for SIP Support for IM (SIMPLE) and VoIP, video, etc.

Motivating Scenarios Why is this important and where can this technology be used? The range of uses span the range from the smallest of offices to global user communities

Motivating Scenarios Small deployments –Security (don’t want to use a central provider) –Lack of resource (can’t run servers) Limited or no Internet connectivity –Emergency scenarios (turn on WiFi, start endpoints, and go!), remote locations Sharing media among portable devices Ad-Hoc and ephemeral groups Large scale decentralized communications –Works with the rest of the (SIP) world

IETF Work to Date “Group” has been very busy! Have had meetings at the last 6 IETFs –First meeting at IETF-62 in March 2005 –Best attended meeting at IETF-67 Almost 2 dozen submitted drafts ~200 messages/month on mailing list Problem is, haven’t been able to move forward, since not an official working group

IETF-67 BoF At IETF-67, BoF to discuss forming Working Group (WG) Group will be chartered! –Should be meeting for first time at IETF-68 in Prague next week! –Charter of the groups goal in place –Chairs announced (Brian Rosen and myself) Finally can start working on official drafts!

What will the WG do? Primary (top level) chartered goals: –Submit an overview document –Create protocol drafts Peer Protocol (Maybe) Client Protocol –P2PSIP applicability document

Overview Document What is a P2PSIP architecture going to look like? What are the design constraints? What are the requirements? In many ways, this can be thought of as a design and requirements document for the protocols Some work already begun on this –draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-03 Sometime in 2007

Protocol Documents One or two documents defining the actual protocol Here is where the hard questions get answered –More on these in a minute Technical details of the protocol What bits go on the wire?

Applicability Document A bit fuzzy today How do we use this? –What scenarios does this address and how is it used to address them –How does this interact/use other protocols and mechanisms (SIP, ICE, various security constructs, configuration) to actually do something with it

Other Documents While these look to be the likely primary WG items, will likely be many other drafts in P2PSIP (many individual efforts) –Positions on the tough questions –Security –BCPs or “Best Current Practices” on how to do certain things using the protocols –Proposals for the protocols

“Hard Questions” There are a number of hard questions for the WG to decide –How do we handle NATs, and does this mean we need clients and peers? –How do we encode/transport the bits (SIP, XML, something else?) –How do we secure this for large deployments while leaving flexibility for smaller ones

How Do We Handle NATs? If all peers are in the public Internet, they can easily communicate with all other peers, and can each share storing some of the information… If one or more peers are behind NATs, they may be unreachable, and may have trouble storing some of the information…

Architecture for NATs Peers behind NATs may become clients and use another peer (or super-peer) to help them communicate with the others Question: Is the protocol for these things different?

Peers and Clients Some debate about idea of clients and peers Most agree that things that are fully participating w/o NATs are peers, clients less clear As a result, working group may define two protocols: –P2PSIP Peer Protocol: between the peers –P2PSIP Client Protocol: between clients and the peers

Peers and Clients Clients will likely only retrieve/place information into the overlay Clients could be pure SIP endpoints (just a phone) – then P2PSIP Peer Protocol would just be conventional SIP or not exist P2PSIP Client Protocol could also be different, and likely a subset of the P2PSIP Peer Protocol Crux of the question: 1 or 2 protocols?

What goes on the wire? Debate over the format of the messages on the wire –SIP messages with special headers –SIP messages with XML bodies –HTTP messages –XML based over SOAP or HTTP –Binary format –Something else? Some believe using SIP improves compatibility, others that separating P2P from signaling makes more sense…

Is any of this SIP? Which (if any) of the protocols will be some flavor of SIP? Several options: –Clients speak pure SIP, Peers speak modified SIP –Clients speak pure SIP, Peers speak something new –Clients and Peers speak something new, but clients speak a subset of the new protocol –Clients and Peers both speak something new but each is different (not being seriously considered)

Security Problems P2PSIP presents very unique security challenges, different than conventional SIP One example: –Each peer needs a unique ID, or PeerID, which controls where in the cluster of peers it is –PeerID also determines which resources are stored by each peer –What security challenges does this pose?

PeerID Attacks A fundamental assumption of a structured P2P network is that PeerIDs are randomly distributed If attackers are able to select PeerIDs, they can mount a variety of attacks Two attacks if you can select PeerIDs: –Partition the P2P network –Block Access Information

Partitioning a Network If an attacker can gain control of all routes between two complete, disjoint neighbor sets, they can partition the network

Blocking by PeerID An attacker who can insert nodes with particular values, can “censor” data or split a node from the overlay

Sybil Attack Even if you can’t pick your PeerID, if you can occupy bulk of namespace, attack is possible

How to Secure? Most can be solved by a central server that issues certificates, but only contacted at enrollment in the service May be very acceptable for a global telecom type system, may not be for an ad-hoc meeting Group must balance security with the flexibility P2P provides –Want a continuum of choices for different deployments

Conclusion P2PSIP is a very interesting area with a great deal of work being done on emerging standard MUCH work left to do There are many areas people are looking at deploying P2PSIP –What “P2PSIP” means to each is different, and all interests need to be balanced in protocol defined. P2PSIP is in someways revolutionary, but also evolutionary P2PSIP shares the same issue with its predecessors: It much harder to agree on global standards than it is to build a new (isolated) communication system.

References Here is the main repository for references: You can link to most other things (IETF work, published papers, mailing lists) from there…

Questions?