IETF 90 -- Guidelines to support RTCP end-to-end in SIP Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs)

416 views

Published on

Guidelines to support RTCP end-to-end in SIP Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs)

Published in: Internet
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
416
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

IETF 90 -- Guidelines to support RTCP end-to-end in SIP Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs)

  1. 1. Guidelines to support RTCP end-to-end in Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs) draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-01 Lorenzo Miniero (lorenzo@meetecho.com) Victor Pascual (victor.pascual@quobis.com) Sergio Garcia Murillo (sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com) July 25th, 2014 STRAW Meeting Session, IETF 90, Toronto
  2. 2. A reminder Deliverable A document defining the requirements for B2BUAs to support RTCP end-to-end submitted to the IESG as PS Lorenzo Miniero IETF 90 - STRAW-RTCP July 25th 2014 2 / 9
  3. 3. What has changed? Several changes after London Updated references and terminology Added more RTCP packet types Added guideline on SDP ’rtcp’ attribute Added discussion on impact of media security Only partly changed Attempted mapping to RTP topologies More on that in separate discussion later... Lorenzo Miniero IETF 90 - STRAW-RTCP July 25th 2014 3 / 9
  4. 4. References and Terminology Updated both Aligned with Taxonomies RFC [RFC7092] Added RTP Topologies [RFC5117] [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update] Terminology improved Probably still needs some work, though Lorenzo Miniero IETF 90 - STRAW-RTCP July 25th 2014 4 / 9
  5. 5. RTCP Packet Types More packet types (from IANA) added to Media-Aware section Extended Reports (XR) [RFC3611] SSRCs, as usual begin seq and end seq in Report Blocks, if needed Receiver Summary Information (RSI) [RFC5760] SSRCs, as usual Same attention for Collision Sub-Report Block Port Mapping (TOKEN) [RFC6284] SSRCs, as usual More? Other types needed? Lorenzo Miniero IETF 90 - STRAW-RTCP July 25th 2014 5 / 9
  6. 6. SDP ’rtcp’ Attribute Added discussion on SDP ’rtcp’ Attribute Mentioned in London as common cause of B2BUA malfunctions If present, it MUST be replaced If not present, it SHOULD be provided to avoid ambiguity Lorenzo Miniero IETF 90 - STRAW-RTCP July 25th 2014 6 / 9
  7. 7. Media Security Clarified that Media Security can have an impact SRTP/SRTCP prevents modification of RTP headers and RTCP packets Not an issue for Media-unaware Relays ... as long as the SDP is not messed up with, of course Can be an issue for Media-aware Relays and Terminators Manipulating RTP headers not an option Hashing of RTP packets would be violated RTCP packets could not be updated accordingly Only way is to act as MITM Unprotect SRTP/SRTCP, modify what necessary, protect again Keying stuff to be updated in SDP with own info, of course End-to-end security lost as part of the process More on that in the DTLS-SRTP draft Lorenzo Miniero IETF 90 - STRAW-RTCP July 25th 2014 7 / 9
  8. 8. Preparing the ground... STRAW Taxonomies vs. RTP Topologies still an open issue Not a problem strictly related to this draft? Separate discussion in next presentation Nevertheless, attempted a simple mapping Media Relay ←→ RTP Transport Translator Media-aware Relay ←→ RTP Translator Media Terminator ←→ RTP Media Translator Is this enough? Lorenzo Miniero IETF 90 - STRAW-RTCP July 25th 2014 8 / 9
  9. 9. Questions? Comments? Lorenzo Miniero IETF 90 - STRAW-RTCP July 25th 2014 9 / 9

×