Educadores Estudiantes
NOMBRE INSTITUCIÓN
Chapter 3 SIP carries the banner of Internet-style innovation into the traditional world of Telco voice services. With SIP, services can be created that com- bine elements from telephony and other Web applications, such as e-mail, messaging, the Internet, and video streaming. The use of open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) means that ISPs, ASPs, and even end users can program their own services. SIP achieves all of this by establishing, modifying, and terminating sessions over IP networks. These sessions could be as basic as a telephone call or as complex as a multiparty mixed-media session. SIP doesn’t care: It specifies only what is needed.
SIP was originally intended to create a mechanism for inviting people to large-scale multipoint conferences on the Internet Multicast Backbone (Mbone). At this stage, IP telephony didn’t really exist. It was soon real- ized that SIP could be used to set up point-to-point conferences—phone calls. The SIP approach exemplifies classic Internet-style innovation: Build only what you need to address only what is lacking in existing mechanisms. Because the SIP approach is modular and free from underly- ing protocol or architectural constraints, and because the protocols them- selves are simple, SIP has caught on as an alternative to H.323 and to vendor-proprietary mechanisms for transporting the telecommunications community Signaling System 7 (SS7) protocols over IP.
SIP is a signaling protocol used for establishing sessions in an IP net- work [15]. A session could be a simple two-way telephone call or it could be a collaborative multimedia conference session. The ability to establish these sessions means that a host of innovative services become possible, such as voice-enriched e-commerce, Web page click-to-dial, IM with buddy lists, and IP Centrex services.
Over the last couple of years, the Voice over IP community has adopted SIP as its protocol of choice for signaling. SIP is an RFC standard (RFC 3261) from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the body responsi- ble for administering and developing the mechanisms that comprise the Internet. SIP is still evolving and being extended as technology matures and SIP products are socialized in the marketplace.
The IETF’s philosophy is one of simplicity: Specify only what you need to specify. SIP follows this philosophy, but having been developed purely as a mechanism to establish sessions, it does not know about the details of a session—it just initiates, terminates, and modifies sessions. This simplicity means that SIP scales, it is extensible, and it sits comfortably in different architectures and deployment scenarios.
68 3.4 Session Initiation Protocol
3.4.1
SIP Security
SIP is considerably less complex to implement than H.323 when simple calls are to be performed. SIP is text based and because of that it avoids cer- tain ASN.1-associated parsing issues the H.323 protocol suite must con- tend with if S/MIME is not used. Also, SIP is an application-level protocol. It exists independently from the protocol layer it is transported across. It can be based in TCP, UDP, or with a number of different IP protocols. UDP may be used to decrease overhead and increase speed and efficiency or TCP may be used if SSL/TLS is incorporated for security services. Unlike H.323, only one port is used in SIP (note that H.323 may also be used in a way that uses only one port—direct routed calls). The default value for this port is 5060.
The architecture of a SIP network is different from the H.323 structure. A SIP network is made up of endpoints, a redirect server, a proxy server, a location server, and a registrar. In the SIP model, a user is not bound to a specific host. Users initially report their location to a registrar, which may be integrated into either a proxy or a redirect server. This information is in turn stored in the external location server. Messages from endpoints must be routed through a proxy or redirect server. The proxy server intercepts messages from endpoints or other services, inspects their “To:” field, con- tacts the location server to resolve the user name into an address, and for- wards the message to the appropriate endpoint. Redirect servers perform the same resolution function, but the onus is placed on the endpoints to perform the actual transmission. That is, redirect servers obtain the actual address of the destination from the location server and return this informa- tion to the original sender, which then must send its message directly to the resolved address.
The SIP protocol itself is modeled on the three-way handshake method implemented in TCP. The call setup process is similar with a redirect server, but with the extra step of returning the resolved address to the source endpoint. During the setup process, communication details are negotiated between the endpoints using Session Description Protocol (SDP), which contains fields for the codec used, the caller’s name, and so on. Here is an example:
If Bob wishes to place a call to Alice, he sends an INVITE request to
3.4 Session Initiation Protocol 69
Chapter 3
The proxy server then takes the INVITE request and forwards it to
Alice’s client via Bob’s proxy, which could even be her proxy server.
Eventually, assuming Alice wants to talk to Bob, she will send an
“OK” message back containing her call preferences in SDP format.
Bob will respond with an “ACK.” SIP provides for the ACK to con-
tain SDP instead of the INVITE, so that an INVITE may be seen without protocol-specific information.
After the “ACK” is received, the conversation may commence along
the RTP/RTCP ports previously agreed upon.
Notice that all the traffic was transported through one port in a simple (text) format, without any of the complicated channel/port switching associated with H.323. Still, SIP presents several challenges for firewalls and NAT.
3.4.2
Existing Security Features in the SIP Protocol
RFC 3261 [16] describes several security features for SIP and deprecates several security features that were advocated in the original RFC 2543 [17], such as the usage of PGP and HTTP Basic Authentication. Because of its weak security, and to avoid attacks by downgrading the required security level of the authentication, the HTTP Basic Authentication was deprecated in the current document RFC 3261.