Subject: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:31:34 +0000

Hi all,

I would like to share with this group a short document that explains how PCP can be of great use in the context SIP-based services:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-sip-ipv6-03

As indicated in the I-D, the main benefits include (but not limited to):

   o  Avoid embedding an ALG in the middleboxes.  Note, ALGs are not

      recommended since the evolution of the service would depend on the

      ALG maintenance.

   o  Not require any Hosted NAT Traversal function (e.g., [RFC7362<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7362>]) to

      be embedded in the SIP server.  Intermediate NATs and firewalls

      are transparent to the SIP service platform.

   o  Avoid overloading the network with keepalive message to maintain

      the mapping in intermediate middleboxes.

   o  Work without requiring symmetric RTP/RTCP [RFC4961<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4961>].

   o  Not require symmetric SIP to work (i.e., rport [RFC3581<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3581>]).

   o  Easily support unidirectional sessions.

When this document was first presented in the PCP WG, I was suggested that it is better to publish it in RAI with a review from the PCP WG. Hence, this message to the list.

Cheers,
Med

---

From: "Parthasarathi R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 04:17:29 +0530

Hi Med,

It is a interesting draft. The current writing provides PCP advantages in
SIP managed network and particularly cellular. The following information has
to be added to provide more clarity about this work:

1)      Network diagram/topology with SIP UA, SIP proxy/B2BUA, PCP client,
PCP server

2)      Basic callflow to show how the dialog is established in case P2P is
used

3)      The draft title mentions IPv6. My understanding is that this shall
be used for IPv4 network as well.

4)      Add more details about how SIP, PCP, ICE interworking happens as the
current reference is related to PCP with rtcweb only.

5)      Security implication w.r.t SIP usage of PCP has to be mentioned.

6)      Advantage of using PCP over TURN in SIP network shall be provided in
the introduction section for better comparison.

Regards

Partha

From: dispatch [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dispatch] PCP for SIP Deployments

Hi all,

I would like to share with this group a short document that explains how PCP
can be of great use in the context SIP-based services:

   o  Avoid embedding an ALG in the middleboxes.  Note, ALGs are not
      recommended since the evolution of the service would depend on the
      ALG maintenance.
   o  Not require any Hosted NAT Traversal function (e.g., [
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7362> RFC7362]) to
      be embedded in the SIP server.  Intermediate NATs and firewalls
      are transparent to the SIP service platform.
   o  Avoid overloading the network with keepalive message to maintain
      the mapping in intermediate middleboxes.
   o  Work without requiring symmetric RTP/RTCP [
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4961> RFC4961].
   o  Not require symmetric SIP to work (i.e., rport [
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3581> RFC3581]).
   o  Easily support unidirectional sessions.

When this document was first presented in the PCP WG, I was suggested that
it is better to publish it in RAI with a review from the PCP WG. Hence, this
message to the list. 

Cheers,

Med