SIP Session Establishment
This section details session establishment between two SIP User
Agents (UAs): Alice and Bob. Alice (sip:alice@atlanta.example.com)
and Bob (sip:bob@biloxi.example.com) are assumed to be SIP phones or
SIP-enabled devices. The successful calls show the initial
signaling, the exchange of media information in the form of SDP
payloads, the establishment of the media session, then finally the
termination of the call.
HTTP Digest authentication is used by Proxy Servers to authenticate
the caller Alice. It is assumed that Bob has registered with Proxy
Server Proxy 2 as per Section 2 to be able to receive the calls via
the Proxy.
3.1. Successful Session Establishment
Alice Bob
| |
| INVITE F1 |
|----------------------->|
| 180 Ringing F2 |
|<-----------------------|
| |
| 200 OK F3 |
|<-----------------------|
| ACK F4 |
|----------------------->|
| Both Way RTP Media |
|<======================>|
| |
| BYE F5 |
|<-----------------------|
| 200 OK F6 |
|----------------------->|
| |
In this scenario, Alice completes a call to Bob directly.
Message Details
F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob
INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
Max-Forwards: 70
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>
Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 12]
RFC 3665 SIP Basic Call Flow Examples December 2003
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:alice@client.atlanta.example.com;transport=tcp>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 151
v=0
o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 client.atlanta.example.com
s=-
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.101
t=0 0
m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice
SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
;received=192.0.2.101
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com;transport=tcp>
Content-Length: 0
F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
;received=192.0.2.101
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: <sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com;transport=tcp>
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 147
v=0
o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com
s=-
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.201
t=0 0
m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 13]
RFC 3665 SIP Basic Call Flow Examples December 2003
F4 ACK Alice -> Bob
ACK sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bd5
Max-Forwards: 70
From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
CSeq: 1 ACK
Content-Length: 0
/* RTP streams are established between Alice and Bob */
/* Bob Hangs Up with Alice. Note that the CSeq is NOT 2, since
Alice and Bob maintain their own independent CSeq counts.
(The INVITE was request 1 generated by Alice, and the BYE is
request 1 generated by Bob) */
F5 BYE Bob -> Alice
BYE sip:alice@client.atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.biloxi.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
Max-Forwards: 70
From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
CSeq: 1 BYE
Content-Length: 0
F6 200 OK Alice -> Bob
SIP/2.0 200 OK
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.biloxi.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
;received=192.0.2.201
From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
CSeq: 1 BYE
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3665
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario