We are going to edit IEEE Network special issue on VoIP Security. 
We invite submissions for this special issue and the due date is October 15, 2005.
See the following link for more details
(http://www.comsoc.org/pubs/net/ntwrk/cfpnetwork3Q06.htm)

Ram Dantu
Dipak Ghosal
Henning Schulzrinne

PS: IEEE Network was the number two most-cited journal in electrical and electronics engineering, number 
one cited journal in telecommunications, and the number two cited journal in computer science hardware 
and architecture, and computer science information systems in 2003, according to the annual Journal 
Citation Report (2003 edition) published by the Institute for Scientific Information. 





>>> <Donghua.Jiang@alltel.com> 05/11/05 11:43 AM >>>
Samir,
 
I think it is kind of fair for the referees to ask for more than just the three approaches that you have evaluated.  You may have different interests than the academic referees'.
 
Since there are many ways of implementing NAT and security in SIP based VoIP solution, it is a good idea for your group to look into different approaches and to provide the journal or the industry with a fair view of what the best approach is.
 
Best regards,
Jane
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Samir Chatterjee
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:45 AM
To: henry@sinnreich.net
Cc: sipping@ietf.org; Christian Stredicke
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Details on SBC



Thanks to all who responded to my query. I would like to give a background on why I requested this info. My lab had conducted detailed performance evaluation of three most well-known standard based approach to solving the SIP-NAT issue. We created testbeds for testing STUN, UPnP and IPFreedome which is proprietary from Ridgeway and quite popular (believe they do a variation of TURN). When the paper was submitted to an academic journal for publication, the referees came back saying why we haven;t studied SBCs and why not ICE. Frankly we could not get any open source solution to ICE and SBCs solving this problem was new to us.
What I am hearing is that SBC may solve this problem but IETF is having hard time understanding what it is and can/should do. Besides there is no open implementation of ICE that one could test for traffic and other performance issues. Wonder why even academic refereees get carried away by vendor hypes then.
Samir


-----Original Message-----
From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of henry@sinnreich.net
Sent: Wed 5/11/2005 8:06 AM
To: Samir Chatterjee
Cc: 'Christian Stredicke'; sipping@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Details on SBC

Samir,



SIP is specified in a collection of standards documents and the SBC is not
part of SIP.



The requirements for NAT are quite stable and formulated in



http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp-01.txt



The NAT traversal scenarios with detailed messages are given in



http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-02.txt



This should give you enough to implement ICE and avoid SBC products for all
the reasons discussed on this list, if one can actually specify what an SBC
is. 100's of attendees at the IETF BOFs on SBC could not. See the report in
the attached. No doubt there are many SBC vendors who will assert to meet
your needs, so you can make the decision for yourself if you want to go with
the SIP standard or use SBC.

See the attached for more details.



Thanks, Henry

Henry Sinnreich
pulver.com
115 Broadhollow Rd
Suite 225
Melville, NY 11747
USA


  _____ 

From: Christian Stredicke [ mailto:Christian.Stredicke@snom.de]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:18 AM
To: Samir Chatterjee
Cc: sipping@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Details on SBC



Hi Samir, also take a look at http://snom.com/download/natf_211.pdf. There
is some explanations of what we are going. At least.



We did ICE ("local media path optimization") in the beginning, but because
of the latest changes in the draft we decided not to do any more changes
until this is in a stable state. We don't like moving targets. And
practically it does not seem to play the role that we thought it would do.
Today I would say it is more important to locate the nearest SBC for the UA
(for a globally operating ITSP).



CS




  _____ 


From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org [ mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Samir Chatterjee
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 12:46 AM
To: sipping@ietf.org
Subject: [Sipping] Details on SBC

Hi:

We are looking for some details on SBC and how they work in terms of call
flows etc. Any pointers?

Also, does someone know of an actual implementation of ICE for NAT/FW
traversal. It could be either commercial or open-source. Something that we
could test for performance. Any help would be appreciated.



Dr. Samir Chatterjee

Founding Director, NCL http://ncl.cgu.edu

School of Information Science

Claremont Graduate University

130 East 9th Street

Claremont, CA 91711

(P) 909-607-4651

(F) 909-621-8564

http://fac.cgu.edu/~chatters






******************************************************************************************
The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain 
privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the 
person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person 
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, ALLTEL requests 
that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or its 
attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else. 



_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP