Internet DRAFT - draft-gurbani-sipping-ipv6-sip
draft-gurbani-sipping-ipv6-sip
SIPPING WG V. Gurbani, Ed.
Internet-Draft Lucent Technologies/Bell
Expires: November 19, 2006 Laboratories
C. Boulton
Ubiquity Software Corporation
R. Sparks
Estacado Systems
May 18, 2006
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Torture Test Messages for Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
draft-gurbani-sipping-ipv6-sip-03.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This informational document provides examples of Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) test messages designed to exercise and "torture" the
IPv6 portions of a SIP implementation.
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
This work is being discussed on the sipping@ietf.org mailing list.
Table of Contents
1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. SIP and IPv6 Network Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Parser Torture Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 Valid SIP request with raw IPv6 addresses . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 Which port should I knock on? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3 Knock on this port, please . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4 SIP request with IPv6 in Via received parameter . . . . . 5
3.4.1 SIP request with delimiting tokens in Via received
parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4.2 SIP request without the delimiter tokens in the
Via received parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5 SIP request with IPv6 identifiers in SDP body . . . . . . 7
3.6 Via headers from different networks in a request . . . . . 8
3.7 SIP request with multiple network identifiers in SDP . . . 8
3.8 More test cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Bit-exact archive of each test message . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.1 Encoded Reference Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 13
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
1. Overview
This document is informational, and is NOT NORMATIVE on any aspect of
SIP.
This document contains test messages based on the current version
(2.0) of the Session Initiation Protocol as defined in [1].
This document is expected to be used as a companion document to the
more general SIP torture test document [3], which does not include
specific tests for IPv6 network identifiers.
This document does not attempt to catalog every way to make an
invalid message, nor does it attempt to be comprehensive in exploring
unusual, but valid, messages. Instead, it tries to focus on areas
that may cause interoperability problems in IPv6 deployments.
The messages are presented in the text using a set of markup
conventions to avoid ambiguity and meet Internet-Draft layout
requirements. To resolve any remaining ambiguity, a bit-accurate
version of each message is encapsulated in an appendix.
2. SIP and IPv6 Network Configuration
System-level issues like deploying a dual-stack proxy server,
populating DNS with A and AAAA RRs, zero-configuration discovery of
outbound proxies for IPv4 and IPv6 networks, when should a dual-stack
proxy Record-Route itself, and media issues also play a major part in
the transition to IPv6. This document does not, however, address
these issues. Instead, a companion document [2] provides more
guidance on these.
3. Parser Torture Tests
The test messages are organized into several sections. Some stress
only a SIP parser and others stress both the parser and the
application above it. Some messages are valid, and some are not.
Each example clearly calls out what makes any invalid messages
incorrect.
Please refer to the ABNF in [1] on representing IPv6 addresses in
SIP. IPv6 addresses are delimited by a '[' and ']'.
The appendix contains an encoded binary form of all the messages and
the algorithm needed to decode them into files.
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
3.1 Valid SIP request with raw IPv6 addresses
This REGISTER request is well-formatted per the grammar in [1]. An
IPv6 address in presentation form appears in the Request-URI (R-URI),
Via header, and Contact header.
Message Details: reg-good
REGISTER sip:[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
To: sip:user@example.com
From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
CSeq: 98176 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
3.2 Which port should I knock on?
IPv6 uses the colon to delimit octets. This may lead to ambiguity if
the port number on which to contact a SIP server is inadverdently
conflated with the IPv6 address. Consider the REGISTER request
below. The sender of the request intended to specify a port number
(5070). Unfortunately, however, since the IPv6 address in the R-URI
is compressed, it makes it hard to tell whether the 5070 is a port
number or the last octet in the address.
From a pure parsing point of view, the REGISTER request is well-
formed. However, from a semantic point of view, it will not yield
the desired result. Implementations must take care to ensure that
when a raw IPv6 address appears in a SIP URI, then any port number
must appear outside the closing '[' of the URI.
Message Details: reg-ambigous
REGISTER sip:[2001:db8::10:5070] SIP/2.0
To: sip:user@example.com
From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
CSeq: 98176 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
3.3 Knock on this port, please
In contrast to the example in Section 3.2, the following REGISTER
request leaves no ambiguity whatsover on where the IPv6 address
begins and where it ends. This REGISTER request is well formatted
per the grammar in [1].
Message Details: reg-good-port
REGISTER sip:[2001:db8::10]:5070 SIP/2.0
To: sip:user@example.com
From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
CSeq: 98176 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
3.4 SIP request with IPv6 in Via received parameter
There currently exists an ambiguity on whether the received parameter
of the Via header that contains an IPv6 address should have the
delimiting '[' and ']' tokens. The RFC3261 ABNF indicates that this
is not the case, however it makes the implementation of the parser
more optimized if it was to recognize the '[' token as a beginning of
an IPv6 address. In all the other instances where an IPv6 address is
used in SIP, it is delimited by the '[' and ']' tokens. Thus, for
the sake of orthogonality as well as optimized parsing, it seems
appropriate that the IPv6 addresses in the received parameter be
delimited by '[' and ']'. Some additional analysis on why the form
that includes the delimiters is desirable is included in the
following reference [7].
More specifically, RFC3261 ABNF defines the via-received production
rule as follows:
via-received = "received" EQUAL (IPv4address / IPv6address)
IPv6address production rule is then defined to hold an IPv6 address
without the delimiting '[' and ']' tokens. There is also an
IPv6reference production rule in RFC3261 that yields the following:
IPv6reference = "[" IPv6address "]"
Thus, to allow the delimiting '[' and ']' tokens in the received
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
parameter, all that would need to be done is to amend the RFC3261
via-received production rule as follows:
via-received = "received" EQUAL (IPv4address / IPv6reference)
However, strong consensus has not yet emerged on this (the issue is
documented on the SIPPING WG mailing list; see [6] for a link to the
start of the discussion thread). At the 18th SIPit, it was observed
that [5]:
Those testing IPv6 made different assumptions about enclosing
literal v6 addresses in Vias in []. By the end of the event, most
implementations were accepting either. Its about 50/50 on what
gets sent.
Consequently, as it now stands, implementations must follow the
Robustness Principle [4] and be liberal in accepting a received
parameter with or without the delimiting '[' and ']' tokens. When
sending a request, implementations must not put the delimiting '['
and ']' tokens. The two test cases that follow, should thus be
acceptable to any SIP implementation that supports IPv6.
3.4.1 SIP request with delimiting tokens in Via received parameter
This REGISTER request contains an IPv6 address in the Via received
parameter. The IPv6 address is delimited by '[' and ']'. Even
though this is not a well-formatted request based on a strict
interpretation of the grammar in [1], robust implementations should
nonetheless be able to parse the topmost Via header.
Message Details: reg-param
REGISTER sip:[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
To: sip:user@example.com
From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];received=[2001:db8::9:255];
branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
CSeq: 98176 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
3.4.2 SIP request without the delimiter tokens in the Via received
parameter
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
This OPTIONS request contains an IPv6 address in the Via received
paramter without the adorning '[' and ']'. This OPTIONS request is
valid and well-formatted.
Message Details: opt-param
OPTIONS sip:[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
To: sip:user@example.com
From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];received=2001:db8::9:255;
branch=z9hG4bKas3
Call-ID: SSG95523997077@hlau_4100
Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
CSeq: 921 OPTIONS
Content-Length: 0
3.5 SIP request with IPv6 identifiers in SDP body
This INVITE request is valid and well-formed. Notice the IPv6
addresses in the SDP body.
Message Details: inv-good
INVITE sip:user@[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
To: sip:user@[2001:db8::10]
From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
CSeq: 8612 INVITE
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 268
v=0
o=assistant 971731711378798081 0 IN IP6 2001:db8::20
s=Live video feed for today's meeting
c=IN IP6 2001:db8::1
t=3338481189 3370017201
m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 2
a=rtpmap:2 G726-32/8000
m=video 6024 RTP/AVP 107
a=rtpmap:107 H263-1998/90000
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
3.6 Via headers from different networks in a request
This BYE request is valid and well-formed. The Via list contains a
mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
Message Details: bye-good
BYE sip:user@host.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1]:6050;branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.1;branch=z9hG4bKjhja8781hjuaij65144
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP [2001:db8::9:255];branch=z9hG4bK451jj;
received=192.0.2.200
Call-ID: 997077@lau_4100
CSeq: 89187 BYE
To: sip:user@example.net;tag=9817--94
From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
3.7 SIP request with multiple network identifiers in SDP
This INVITE request is valid and well-formed. It contains multiple
network identifiers in the SDP body.
Message Details: inv-mult-sdp
INVITE sip:user@[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
To: sip:user@[2001:db8::10]
From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
CSeq: 8912 INVITE
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 181
v=0
o=bob 280744730 28977631 IN IP4 host.example.com
s=
t=0 0
m=audio 22334 RTP/AVP 0
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
m=video 6024 RTP/AVP 107
c=IN IP6 2001:db8::1
a=rtpmap:107 H263-1998/90000
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
3.8 More test cases
TBD. Looking for more test cases...suggestions welcome.
4. Security Considerations
This document presents NON NORMATIVE examples of SIP session
establishment. The security considerations in [1] apply.
Parsers must carefully consider edge conditions and malicious input
as part of their design. Attacks on many Internet systems use
crafted input to cause implementations to behave in undesirable ways.
Many of the messages in this draft are designed to stress a parser
implementation at points traditionally used for such attacks. This
document does not, however, attempt to be comprehensive. It contains
some common pitfalls that the authors have discovered while parsing
IPv6 identifiers in SIP implementations.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Jeroen van Bemmel, Dennis Bijwaard, Gonzalo
Camarillo, Bob Gilligan, Larry Kollasch, Erik Nordmark, Kumiko Ono
and Pekka Pessi for input provided during the construction of the
document and discussion of the test cases.
The appendix contains a bit-exact archive of each message following
the convention established by Robert Sparks.
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[1] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[2] Camarillo, G., El Malki, K., and V. Gurbani, "IPv6 Transition in
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-02.txt (work in progress),
October 2005.
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
7.2 Informative References
[3] Sparks, R., Hawrylyshen, A., Hawrylyshen, A., Rosenberg, J., and
H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol Torture Test
Messages", draft-ietf-sipping-torture-tests-09 (work in
progress), November 2005.
[4] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication
Layers", RFC 1122, October 1989.
[5] Sparks, R., "preliminary report: SIPit 18", Electronic Mail
archived at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/
msg14103.html, April 2006.
[6] Gurbani, V., "SIP/IPv6 torture test and possible interaction
with rfc3261 ABNF", Electronic Mail archived at http://
www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg10341.html,
February 2006.
[7] van Bemmel, J., "[Sipping] Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP/IPv6
torture test and possible interaction with rfc3261 ABNF",
Electronic Mail archived at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/
web/sipping/current/msg10373.html, February 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Vijay Gurbani (editor)
Lucent Technologies/Bell Laboratories
2701 Lucent Lane
Rm 9F-546
Lisle, IL 60532
USA
Phone: +1 630 224 0216
Email: vkg@lucent.com
Chris Boulton
Ubiquity Software Corporation
Building 3
West Fawr Lane
St Mellons
Cardiff, South Wales CF3 5EA
Email: cboulton@ubiquitysoftware.com
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
Robert J. Sparks
Estacado Systems
Email: RjS@estacado.net
Appendix A. Bit-exact archive of each test message
The following text block is an encoded, gzip compressed TAR archive
of files that represent each of the example messages discussed in
Section 4.
To recover the compressed archive file intact, the text of this
document may be passed as input to the following Perl script (the
output should be redirected to a file or piped to "tar -xzvf -").
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
my $bdata = "";
use MIME::Base64;
while(<>) {
if (/-- BEGIN MESSAGE ARCHIVE --/ .. /-- END MESSAGE ARCHIVE --/) {
if ( m/^\s*[^\s]+\s*$/) {
$bdata = $bdata . $_;
}
}
}
print decode_base64($bdata);
Alternatively, the base-64 encoded block can be edited by hand to
remove document structure lines and fed as input to any base-64
decoding utility.
A.1 Encoded Reference Messages
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
-- BEGIN MESSAGE ARCHIVE --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-- END MESSAGE ARCHIVE --
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 Torture Tests May 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Gurbani, et al. Expires November 19, 2006 [Page 13]
