[Users] Hiding Contact or Via fields

[Marco Meinardi]

Dear Bogdan,

thanks for your clear reply.

 > indeed, sequential request may by-pass proxies on the path (even if RR
 > was used). For fixed entities like GWs, you can avoid this by
 > configuring the GW to accept requests only form your proxy (which will
 > act as a border controller for your domain). Even if a client will try
 > to send directly to GW, it will be blocked.

This is clear for securing PSTN access, but I would like to set up a SIP 
proxy that can totally hide UAs identities, even using an RTP proxy for 
proxying also all RTP streams (I am aware of bandwidth requirements and 
performance limitation), regardless of they are NATed hosts or not.

 > there is no such support for the moment. VIA and Contact are key
 > routing elements and playing with them might get things broken.  also
 > you have to consider that contact is a per-dialog information and if
 > you change it, you need to remember the original value across the
 > entire dialog.

So I understand that it is not possible to prevent real UAs address 
contacts from being forwarded to far end users. If you confirm this, do 
you think of any workaround?

Thanks a lot in advance and kindest regards.

Marco

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi Marco,
> 
> 
> Marco Meinardi wrote:
> 
>> Dear Sirs,
>>
>> being new to SIP and OpenSer, I have read the SIP introduction and 
>> Admin's Guide, but there still is an issue that I could not find 
>> information about.
>>
>> I would like to set up a SIP infrastructure made of many UAs and one 
>> SIP proxy (OpenSer). I want to bypass any NAT configuration so that I 
>> will use UAs with STUN support and mediaproxy module on OpenSer; I 
>> will perform billing (accounting) on the SIP proxy, so I will use 
>> record route on OpenSer.
>>
>> I want to make sure that my accounting will *never* be bypassed. This 
>> seems quite difficult because the fields 'Contact' and 'Via' contain 
>> the real address of the UA (or the translated one in case of NAT 
>> configuration) and the SIP header will be fowarded to the other UA. 
>> Sniffing the network for SIP packets, any user will be able to know 
>> the real address of the UA and make direct call bypassing the SIP proxy.
> 
> indeed, sequential request may by-pass proxies on the path (even if RR 
> was used). For fixed entities like GWs, you can avoid this by 
> configuring the GW to accept requests only form your proxy (which will 
> act as a border controller for your domain). Even if a client will try 
> to send directly to GW, it will be blocked.
> 
>>
>> How could I secure this situation, avoiding to forward Contact and Via 
>> fields containing the real UA address? I was thinking if it is 
>> possible to replace UA address with SIP proxy address, or would I 
>> break any protocol rule?
> 
> there is no such support for the moment. VIA and Contact are key routing 
> elements and playing with them might get things broken.  also you have 
> to consider that contact is a per-dialog information and if you change 
> it, you need to remember the original value across the entire dialog.
> 
> regards,
> bogdan
> 
> 

-- 
Marco Meinardi <m.meinardi at reteitaly.com>

ReteItaly S.r.l.
www.reteitaly.com
_____________________________________________

C.so Svizzera, 185 - 10149 Torino - Italy
Tel. +39 011 7767694 - Mobile +39 335 7878604
Fax +39 011 746179
_____________________________________________