throbber
Network Working Group A. Johnston
`Request for Comments: 3666 MCI
`BCP: 76 S. Donovan
`Category: Best Current Practice R. Sparks
` C. Cunningham
` dynamicsoft
` K. Summers
` Sonus
` December 2003
`
` Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
` Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) Call Flows
`
`Status of this Memo
`
` This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
` Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
` improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
`
`Copyright Notice
`
` Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
`
`Abstract
`
` This document contains best current practice examples of Session
` Initiation Protocol (SIP) call flows showing interworking with the
` Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Elements in these call
` flows include SIP User Agents, SIP Proxy Servers, and PSTN Gateways.
` Scenarios include SIP to PSTN, PSTN to SIP, and PSTN to PSTN via SIP.
` PSTN telephony protocols are illustrated using ISDN (Integrated
` Services Digital Network), ISUP (ISDN User Part), and FGB (Feature
` Group B) circuit associated signaling. PSTN calls are illustrated
` using global telephone numbers from the PSTN and private extensions
` served on by a PBX (Private Branch Exchange). Call flow diagrams and
` message details are shown.
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 1]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
`Table of Contents
`
` 1. Overview..................................................... 2
` 1.1. General Assumptions.................................... 3
` 1.2. Legend for Message Flows............................... 4
` 1.3. SIP Protocol Assumptions............................... 5
` 2. SIP to PSTN Dialing.......................................... 6
` 2.1. Successful SIP to ISUP PSTN call....................... 7
` 2.2. Successful SIP to ISDN PBX call........................ 15
` 2.3. Successful SIP to ISUP PSTN call with overflow......... 23
` 2.4. Session established using ENUM Query................... 32
` 2.5. Unsuccessful SIP to PSTN call: Treatment from PSTN..... 38
` 2.6. Unsuccessful SIP to PSTN: REL w/Cause from PSTN........ 45
` 2.7. Unsuccessful SIP to PSTN: ANM Timeout.................. 49
` 3. PSTN to SIP Dialing.......................................... 54
` 3.1. Successful PSTN to SIP call............................ 55
` 3.2. Successful PSTN to SIP call, Fast Answer............... 62
` 3.3. Successful PBX to SIP call............................. 68
` 3.4. Unsuccessful PSTN to SIP REL, SIP error mapped to REL.. 74
` 3.5. Unsuccessful PSTN to SIP REL, SIP busy mapped to REL... 76
` 3.6. Unsuccessful PSTN->SIP, SIP error interworking to tones 80
` 3.7. Unsuccessful PSTN->SIP, ACM timeout.................... 84
` 3.8. Unsuccessful PSTN->SIP, ACM timeout, stateless Proxy... 88
` 3.9. Unsuccessful PSTN->SIP, Caller Abandonment............. 91
` 4. PSTN to PSTN Dialing via SIP Network......................... 96
` 4.1. Successful ISUP PSTN to ISUP PSTN call................. 97
` 4.2. Successful FGB PBX to ISDN PBX call with overflow...... 105
` 5. Security Considerations...................................... 113
` 6. References................................................... 115
` 6.1. Normative References................................... 115
` 6.2. Informative References................................. 115
` 7. Acknowledgments.............................................. 116
` 8. Intellectual Property Statement.............................. 116
` 9. Authors’ Addresses........................................... 117
` 10. Full Copyright Statement..................................... 118
`
`1. Overview
`
` The call flows shown in this document were developed in the design of
` a SIP IP communications network. They represent an example of a
` minimum set of functionality.
`
` It is the hope of the authors that this document will be useful for
` SIP implementers, designers, and protocol researchers alike and will
` help further the goal of a standard implementation of RFC 3261 [2].
` These flows represent carefully checked and working group reviewed
` scenarios of the most common SIP/PSTN interworking examples as a
` companion to the specifications.
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 2]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
` These call flows are based on the current version 2.0 of SIP in RFC
` 3261 [2] with SDP usage described in RFC 3264 [3]. Other RFCs also
` comprise the SIP standard but are not used in this set of basic call
` flows. The SIP/ISUP mapping is based on RFC 3398 [4].
`
` Various PSTN signaling protocols are illustrated in this document:
` ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network), ISUP (ISDN User Part) and
` FGB (Feature Group B) circuit associated signaling. This document
` shows mainly ANSI ISUP due to its practical origins. However, as
` used in this document, the usage is virtually identical to the ITU-T
` International ISUP used as the reference in [4].
`
` Basic SIP call flow examples are contained in a companion document,
` RFC 3665 [10].
`
` The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
` "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
` document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1].
`
`1.1. General Assumptions
`
` A number of architecture, network, and protocol assumptions underlie
` the call flows in this document. Note that these assumptions are not
` requirements. They are outlined in this section so that they may be
` taken into consideration and to aid in the understanding of the call
` flow examples.
`
` The authentication of SIP User Agents in these example call flows is
` performed using HTTP Digest as defined in [3] and [5].
`
` Some Proxy Servers in these call flows insert Record-Route headers
` into requests to ensure that they are in the signaling path for
` future message exchanges.
`
` These flows show TLS, TCP, and UDP for transport. SCTP could also be
` used. See the discussion in RFC 3261 [2] for details on the
` transport issues for SIP.
`
` The SIP Proxy Server has access to a Location Service and other
` databases. Information present in the Request-URI and the context
` (From header) is sufficient to determine to which proxy or gateway
` the message should be routed. In most cases, a primary and secondary
` route will be determined in case of a Proxy or Gateway failure
` downstream.
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 3]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
` Gateways provide tones (ringing, busy, etc) and announcements to the
` PSTN side based on SIP response messages, or pass along audio in-band
` tones (ringing, busy tone, etc.) in an early media stream to the SIP
` side.
`
` The interactions between the Proxy and Gateway can be summarized as
` follows:
`
` - The SIP Proxy Server performs digit analysis and lookup and
` locates the correct gateway.
`
` - The SIP Proxy Server performs gateway location based on primary
` and secondary routing.
`
` Telephone numbers are usually represented as SIP URIs. Note that an
` alternative is the use of the tel URI [6].
`
` This document shows typical examples of SIP/ISUP interworking.
` Although in the spirit of the SIP-T framework [7], these examples do
` not represent a complete implementation of the framework. The
` examples here represent more of a minimal set of examples for very
` basic SIP to ISUP interworking, rather than the more complex goal of
` ISUP transparency. In particular, there are NO examples of
` encapsulated ISUP in this document. If present, these messages would
` show S/MIME encryption due to the sensitive nature of this
` information, as discussed in the SIP-T Framework security
` considerations section. (Note - RFC 3204 [8] contains an example of
` an INVITE with encapsulated ISUP.) See the Security Considerations
` section for a more detailed discussion on the security of these call
` flows.
`
` In ISUP, the Calling Party Number is abbreviated as CgPN and the
` Called Party Number is abbreviated as CdPN. Other abbreviations
` include Numbering Plan Indicator (NPI) and Nature of Address (NOA).
`
`1.2. Legend for Message Flows
`
` Dashed lines (---) represent signaling messages that are mandatory to
` the call scenario. These messages can be SIP or PSTN signaling. The
` arrow indicates the direction of message flow.
`
` Double dashed lines (===) represent media paths between network
` elements.
`
` Messages with parentheses around their name represent optional
` messages.
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 4]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
` Messages are identified in the Figures as F1, F2, etc. This
` references the message details in the list that follows the Figure.
` Comments in the message details are shown in the following form:
`
` /* Comments. */
`
`1.3. SIP Protocol Assumptions
`
` This document does not prescribe the flows precisely as they are
` shown, but rather the flows illustrate the principles for best
` practice. They are best practices usages (orderings, syntax,
` selection of features for the purpose, handling of error) of SIP
` methods, headers and parameters. IMPORTANT: The exact flows here
` must not be copied as is by an implementer due to specific incorrect
` characteristics that were introduced into the document for
` convenience and are listed below. To sum up, the SIP/PSTN call flows
` represent well-reviewed examples of SIP usage, which are best common
` practice according to IETF consensus.
`
` For simplicity in reading and editing the document, there are a
` number of differences between some of the examples and actual SIP
` messages. For example, the SIP Digest responses are not actual MD5
` encodings. Call-IDs are often repeated, and CSeq counts often begin
` at 1. Header fields are usually shown in the same order. Usually
` only the minimum required header field set is shown, others that
` would normally be present, such as Accept, Supported, Allow, etc. are
` not shown.
`
` Actors:
`
` Element Display Name URI IP Address
` ------- ------------ --- ----------
`
` User Agent Alice sip:alice@a.example.com 192.0.2.101
` User Agent Bob sip:bob@b.example.com 192.0.2.200
` Proxy Server sip:ss1.a.example.com 192.0.2.111
` User Agent (Gateway) sip:gw1.a.example.com 192.0.2.201
` User Agent (Gateway) sip:gw2.a.example.com 192.0.2.202
` User Agent (Gateway) sip:gw3.a.example.com 192.0.2.203
` User Agent (Gateway) sip:ngw1.a.example.com 192.0.2.103
` User Agent (Gateway) sip:ngw2.a.example.com 192.0.2.102
`
` Note that NGW 1 and NGW 2 also have device URIs (Contacts) of
` sip:ngw1@a.example.com and sip:ngw2@a.example.com which resolve to
` the Proxy Server sip:ss1.wcom.com using DNS SRV records.
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 5]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
`2. SIP to PSTN Dialing
`
` In the following scenarios, Alice (sip:alice@a.example.com) is a SIP
` phone or other SIP-enabled device. Bob is reachable via the PSTN at
` global telephone number +19725552222. Alice places a call to Bob
` through a Proxy Server, Proxy 1, and a Network Gateway. In other
` scenarios, Alice places calls to Carol, who is served via a PBX
` (Private Branch Exchange) and is identified by a private extension
` 444-3333, or global number +1-918-555-3333. Note that Alice uses
` his/her global telephone number +1-314-555-1111 in the From header in
` the INVITE messages. This then gives the Gateway the option of using
` this header to populate the calling party identification field in
` subsequent signaling. Left open is the issue of how the Gateway can
` determine the accuracy of the telephone number which is necessary
` before passing it as a valid calling party number in the PSTN.
`
` In these scenarios, Alice is a SIP phone or other SIP-enabled device.
` Alice places a call to Bob in the PSTN or Carol on a PBX through a
` Proxy Server and a Gateway.
`
` In the failure scenarios, the call does not complete. In some cases
` however, a media stream is still setup. This is due to the fact that
` some failures in dialing to the PSTN result in in-band tones (busy,
` reorder tones or announcements - "The number you have dialed has
` changed. The new number is..."). The 183 Session Progress response
` containing SDP media information is used to setup this early media
` path so that the caller Alice knows the final disposition of the
` call.
`
` The media stream is either terminated by the caller after the tone or
` announcement has been heard and understood, or by the Gateway after a
` timer expires.
`
` In other failure scenarios, a SS7 Release with Cause Code is mapped
` to a SIP response. In these scenarios, the early media path is not
` used, but the actual failure code is conveyed to the caller by the
` SIP User Agent Client.
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 6]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
`2.1. Successful SIP to ISUP PSTN call
`
` Alice Proxy 1 NGW 1 Switch B
` | | | |
` | INVITE F1 | | |
` |--------------->| | |
` | 100 F2 | | |
` |<---------------| INVITE F3 | |
` | |--------------->| |
` | | 100 F4 | |
` | |<---------------| IAM F5 |
` | | |--------------->|
` | | | ACM F6 |
` | | 183 F7 |<---------------|
` | 183 F8 |<---------------| |
` |<---------------| | |
` | Both Way RTP Media | One Way Voice |
` |<===============================>|<===============|
` | | | ANM F9 |
` | | 200 F10 |<---------------|
` | 200 F11 |<---------------| |
` |<---------------| | |
` | ACK F12 | | |
` |--------------->| ACK F13 | |
` | |--------------->| |
` | Both Way RTP Media | Both Way Voice |
` |<===============================>|<==============>|
` | BYE F14 | | |
` |--------------->| BYE F15 | |
` | |--------------->| |
` | | 200 F16 | |
` | 200 F17 |<---------------| REL F18 |
` |<---------------| |--------------->|
` | | | RLC F19 |
` | | |<---------------|
` | | | |
`
` Alice dials the globalized E.164 number +19725552222 to reach Bob.
` Note that A might have only dialed the last 7 digits, or some other
` dialing plan. It is assumed that the SIP User Agent Client converts
` the digits into a global number and puts them into a SIP URI. Note
` that tel URIs could be used instead of SIP URIs.
`
` Alice could use either their SIP address (sip:alice@a.example.com) or
` SIP telephone number (sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone)
` in the From header. In this example, the telephone number is
` included, and it is shown as being passed as calling party
` identification through the Network Gateway (NGW 1) to Bob (F5). Note
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 7]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
` that for this number to be passed into the SS7 network, it would have
` to be somehow verified for accuracy.
`
` In this scenario, Bob answers the call, then Alice disconnects the
` call. Signaling between NGW 1 and Bob’s telephone switch is ANSI
` ISUP. For the details of SIP to ISUP mapping, refer to [4].
`
` In this flow, notice that the Contact returned by NGW 1 in messages
` F7-11 is sip:ngw1@a.example.com. This is because NGW 1 only accepts
` SIP messages that come through Proxy 1 - any direct signaling will be
` ignored. Since this Contact URI may be used outside of this dialog
` and must be routable (Section 8.1.1.8 in RFC 3261 [2]) the Contact
` URI for NGW 1 must resolve to Proxy 1. This Contact URI resolves via
` DNS to Proxy 1 (sip:ss1.a.example.com) which then resolves it to
` sip:ngw1.a.example.com which is the address of NGW 1.
`
` This flow shows TCP transport.
`
` Message Details
`
` F1 INVITE Alice -> Proxy 1
`
` INVITE sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone SIP/2.0
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` Max-Forwards: 70
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 1 INVITE
` Contact: <sip:alice@client.a.example.com;transport=tcp>
` Proxy-Authorization: Digest username="alice", realm="a.example.com",
` nonce="dc3a5ab25302aa931904ba7d88fa1cf5", opaque="",
` uri="sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone",
` response="ccdca50cb091d587421457305d097458c"
` Content-Type: application/sdp
` Content-Length: 154
`
` v=0
` o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 client.a.example.com
` s=-
` c=IN IP4 client.a.example.com
` t=0 0
` m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
` a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 8]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
` F2 100 Trying Proxy 1 -> Alice
`
` SIP/2.0 100 Trying
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` ;received=192.0.2.101
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 1 INVITE
` Content-Length: 0
`
` /* Proxy 1 uses a Location Service function to determine the gateway
` for terminating this call. The call is forwarded to NGW 1. Client
` for A prepares to receive data on port 49172 from the
` network.*/
`
` F3 INVITE Proxy 1 -> NGW 1
`
` INVITE sip:+19725552222@ngw1.a.example.com;user=phone SIP/2.0
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP ss1.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` ;received=192.0.2.101
` Max-Forwards: 69
` Record-Route: <sip:ss1.a.example.com;lr>
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 1 INVITE
` Contact: <sip:alice@client.a.example.com;transport=tcp>
` Content-Type: application/sdp
` Content-Length: 154
`
` v=0
` o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 client.a.example.com
` s=-
` c=IN IP4 client.a.example.com
` t=0 0
` m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
` a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
`
` F4 100 Trying NGW 1 -> Proxy 1
`
` SIP/2.0 100 Trying
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP ss1.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 9]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
` ;received=192.0.2.111
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 1 INVITE
` Content-Length: 0
`
` F5 IAM NGW 1 -> Bob
`
` IAM
` CdPN=972-555-2222,NPI=E.164,NOA=National
` CgPN=314-555-1111,NPI=E.164,NOA=National
`
` F6 ACM Bob -> NGW 1
`
` ACM
`
` F7 183 Session Progress NGW 1 -> Proxy 1
`
` SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP ss1.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1
` ;received=192.0.2.111
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` ;received=192.0.2.101
` Record-Route: <sip:ss1.a.example.com;lr>
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=314159
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 1 INVITE
` Contact: <sip:ngw1@a.example.com;transport=tcp>
` Content-Type: application/sdp
` Content-Length: 146
`
` v=0
` o=GW 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 ngw1.a.example.com
` s=-
` c=IN IP4 ngw1.a.example.com
` t=0 0
` m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
` a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
`
` /* NGW 1 sends PSTN audio (ringing) in the RTP path to A */
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 10]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
` F8 183 Session Progress Proxy 1 -> Alice
`
` SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` ;received=192.0.2.101
` Record-Route: <sip:ss1.a.example.com;lr>
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=314159
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 1 INVITE
` Contact: <sip:ngw1@a.example.com;transport=tcp>
` Content-Type: application/sdp
` Content-Length: 146
`
` v=0
` o=GW 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 ngw1.a.example.com
` s=-
` c=IN IP4 ngw1.a.example.com
` t=0 0
` m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
` a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
`
` F9 ANM Bob -> NGW 1
`
` ANM
`
` F10 200 OK NGW 1 -> Proxy 1
`
` SIP/2.0 200 OK
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP ss1.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1
` ;received=192.0.2.111
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` ;received=192.0.2.101
` Record-Route: <sip:ss1.a.example.com;lr>
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=314159
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 1 INVITE
` Contact: <sip:ngw1@a.example.com;transport=tcp>
` Content-Type: application/sdp
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 11]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
` Content-Length: 146
`
` v=0
` o=GW 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 ngw1.a.example.com
` s=-
` c=IN IP4 gw1.a.example.com
` t=0 0
` m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
` a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
`
` F11 200 OK Proxy 1 -> Alice
`
` SIP/2.0 200 OK
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` ;received=192.0.2.101
` Record-Route: <sip:ss1.a.example.com;lr>
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=314159
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 1 INVITE
` Contact: <sip:ngw1@a.example.com;transport=tcp>
` Content-Type: application/sdp
` Content-Length: 146
`
` v=0
` o=GW 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 ngw1.a.example.com
` s=-
` c=IN IP4 ngw1.a.example.com
` t=0 0
` m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
` a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
`
` F12 ACK Alice -> Proxy 1
`
` ACK sip:ngw1@a.example.com SIP/2.0
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` Max-Forwards: 70
` Route: <sip:ss1.a.example.com;lr>
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=314159
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 1 ACK
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 12]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
` Content-Length: 0
`
` F13 ACK Proxy 1 -> NGW 1
`
` ACK sip:ngw1@a.example.com SIP/2.0
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP ss1.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` ;received=192.0.2.101
` Max-Forwards: 69
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=314159
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 1 ACK
` Content-Length: 0
`
` /* Alice Hangs Up with Bob. */
`
` F14 BYE Alice -> Proxy 1
`
` BYE sip:ngw1@a.example.com SIP/2.0
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` Max-Forwards: 70
` Route: <sip:ss1.a.example.com;lr>
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=314159
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 2 BYE
` Content-Length: 0
`
` F15 BYE Proxy 1 -> NGW 1
`
` BYE sip:ngw1@a.example.com SIP/2.0
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP ss1.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` ;received=192.0.2.101
` Max-Forwards: 69
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=314159
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 13]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
` CSeq: 2 BYE
` Content-Length: 0
`
` F16 200 OK NGW 1 -> Proxy 1
`
` SIP/2.0 200 OK
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP ss1.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK2d4790.1
` ;received=192.0.2.111
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` ;received=192.0.2.101
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=314159
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 2 BYE
` Content-Length: 0
`
` F17 200 OK Proxy 1 -> A
`
` SIP/2.0 200 OK
` Via: SIP/2.0/TCP client.a.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` ;received=192.0.2.101
` From: Alice <sip:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Bob <sip:+19725552222@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=314159
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 2 BYE
` Content-Length: 0
`
` F18 REL NGW 1 -> B
`
` REL
` CauseCode=16 Normal
`
` F19 RLC B -> NGW 1
`
` RLC
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 14]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
`2.2. Successful SIP to ISDN PBX call
`
` Alice Proxy 1 GW 1 PBX C
` | | | |
` | INVITE F1 | | |
` |--------------->| | |
` | 100 F2 | | |
` |<---------------| INVITE F3 | |
` | |--------------->| |
` | | 100 F4 | |
` | |<---------------| SETUP F5 |
` | | |--------------->|
` | | | CALL PROC F6 |
` | | |<---------------|
` | | | PROGress F7 |
` | | 180 F8 |<---------------|
` | 180 F9 |<---------------| |
` |<---------------| | |
` | | | One Way Voice |
` | | |<===============|
` | | | CONNect F10 |
` | | |<---------------|
` | | | CONNect ACK F11|
` | | 200 F12 |--------------->|
` | 200 F13 |<---------------| |
` |<---------------| | |
` | ACK F14 | | |
` |--------------->| ACK F15 | |
` | |--------------->| |
` | Both Way RTP Media | Both Way Voice |
` |<===============================>|<==============>|
` | BYE F16 | | |
` |--------------->| BYE F17 | |
` | |--------------->| |
` | | 200 F18 | |
` | 200 F19 |<---------------| DISConnect F20 |
` |<---------------| |--------------->|
` | | | RELease F21 |
` | | |<---------------|
` | | | RELease COM F22|
` | | |--------------->|
` | | | |
`
` Alice is a SIP device while Carol is connected via a Gateway (GW 1)
` to a PBX. The PBX connection is via a ISDN trunk group. Alice dials
` Carol’s telephone number (918-555-3333) which is globalized and put
` into a SIP URI.
`
`Johnston, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 15]
`
`AT&T Exhibit 1036
`AT&T v. VoIP, IPR 2017-01384
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`RFC 3666 SIP PSTN Call Flows December 2003
`
` The host portion of the Request-URI in the INVITE F3 is used to
` identify the context (customer, trunk group, or line) in which the
` private number 444-3333 is valid. Otherwise, this INVITE message
` could get forwarded by GW 1 and the context of the digits could
` become lost and the call unroutable.
`
` Proxy 1 looks up the telephone number and locates the gateway that
` serves Carol. Carol is identified by its extension (444-3333) in the
` Request-URI sent to GW 1.
`
` Note that the Contact URI for GW 1, as used in messages F8, F9, F12,
` and F13, is sips:4443333@gw1.a.example.com, which resolves directly
` to the gateway.
`
` This flow shows the use of Secure SIP (sips) URIs.
`
` Message Details
`
` F1 INVITE Alice -> Proxy 1
`
` INVITE sips:+19185553333@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone SIP/2.0
` Via: SIP/2.0/TLS client.a.example.com:5061;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
` Max-Forwards: 70
` From: Alice <sips:+13145551111@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` ;tag=9fxced76sl
` To: Carol <sips:+19185553333@ss1.a.example.com;user=phone>
` Call-ID: 2xTb9vxSit55XU7p8@a.example.com
` CSeq: 2 INVITE
` Contact: <sips:alice@client.a.example.com>
` Proxy-Authorization: Digest username="alice",
` realm="a.example.com", nonce="qo0dc3a5ab22aa931904badfa1cf5j9h",
` opaque="", uri="sips:+1918555

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket