Advertisement

An address resolution and key exchange protocol for conferencing applications on the Internet

  • Michael Fromme
  • Lutz Grüneberg
  • Helmut Pralle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1483)

Abstract

Many multimedia conference initiation and control protocols like the Session Invitation Protocol or ITU-T H.323 are likely to coexist on the Internet. Although these protocols have different invitation schemes and different addressing mechanisms, they all need transport addresses to send conference calls. Considering users mobility, address redirection mechanisms were built into invitation protocols, but in a way specific to that particular protocol. The Confman Address Resolution Protocol (ConfARP) is a simple protocol designed to allow address translations from logical addresses to transport addresses independent of the applied conference initiation protocol. Further ConfARP can deliver encryption keys for the conference setup along with the transport addresses to support encrypted conference calls.

Keywords

Session Initiation Protocol Request Message Conference Call Proxy Server Reply Message 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ANSI X3.92. American standard for data encryption algorithm (DEA), 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Audio-Video Transport Working Group, H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, and V. Jacobson. RFC 1889: RTP: A transport protocol for real-time applications, Jan. 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Berners-Lee, L. Masinter, and M. McCahill. RFC 1738: Uniform resource locators (URL), Dec. 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Böker, C. Fricke, L. Grüneberg, and H. Pralle. Entwicklung eines Management-Systems fr multimediale Online-Konferenzen. In Proceedings der Fachtagung SIWORK 96, Mai 1996. http://www.rvs.uni-hannover.de/reports/siwork.html.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. T. Braden. RFC 1123: Requirements for Internet hosts — application and support, Oct. 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Droms. RFC 2131: Dynamic host configuration protocol, Mar. 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Eriksson. MBONE: The multicast backbone. Communications of the ACM, 37(8):54–60, 1994.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Fromme. The Confman Address Resolution Protocol. Protocol description. http://www.rvs.uni-hannover.de/projekte/mbwz/confarp.txt, Work in progress., May 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Handley. SAP: Session announcement protocol. Internet Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-sap-00.txt, Work in progress, November 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Handley, J. Crowcroft, C. Bormann, and J. Ott. The internet multimedia conferencing architecture. Internet Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-confarch-00.txt, Work in progress, July 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Handley, H. Schulzrinne, and E. Schooler. SIP: Session initiation protocol, November 1997. Internet Draft draft-ietf-mmusic-sip-04.ps, Work in Progress.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Telecommunication Union. Draft ITU-T recommendation H.323: Visual telephone sytems and equipment for local area networks which provide a non-guaranteed quality of service, November 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    International Telecommunication Union. Recommendation I.362: B-ISDN ATM Adaption Layer (ATMAL) Functional Description, March 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC21. Information Processing Systems — Open Systems Interconnection — the directory: Overview of concepts, models and service. International Standard 9594-1, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. McGregor. RFC 1332: The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP), May 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Newman. Application protocol design principles, July 1997. Internet Draft draft-newman-protocol-design-01.txt, Work in Progress.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. L. Rivest, A. Shamir, and L. M. Adleman. A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. Communications of the ACM, 21(2):120–126, February 1978.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Schiffman and E. Rescorla. The secure hypertext transfer protocol. Internet Draft draft-ietf-wts-shttp-05.txt, Work in progress, November 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Schulzrinne. Personal mobility for multimedia services in the internet. In B. Butscher, E. Moeller, and H. Pusch, editors, Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Services, 1996. European Workshop IDMS'96.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    H. Schulzrinne. Assignment of status codes for HTTP-derived protocols, July 1997. Internet Draft draft-schulzrinne-http-status-01.ps, Work in Progress.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    W. Simpson. RFC 1661: The point-to-point protocol (PPP), July 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sun Microsystems. snoop — capture and inspect network packets, January 1995. SunOS 5.5 manual page.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    W. Yeong, T. Howes, and S. Kille. RFC 1777: Lightweight directory access protocol, Mar. 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. Zimmermann. The Official PGP Users's Guide. MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Fromme
    • 1
  • Lutz Grüneberg
    • 1
  • Helmut Pralle
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrgebiet Rechnernetze und Verteilte SystemeUniversitÄt HannoverHannover

Personalised recommendations