Service architectures in H.323 and SIP: A comparison

One of the major challenges for next-generation IP networks is to provide new, attractive multimedia services. This includes traditional telephony (voice over IP) and the interworking with legacy telephony systems. In addition to the general problems regarding the support of realtime services in the IP network, e.g., quality of service, voice over IP focuses on the control of advanced features such as supplementary services well known from telephony and on the mechanisms for their fast and efficient development and deployment. The two most promising approaches in the area of multimedia over IP are the protocol suites H.323 (ITU-T) and SIP (IETF). Several comparisons of these two protocols have already been published, but comparisons of their service architectures have been rarely addressed. This tutorial describes and compares the service architectures of H.323 and SIP. The basic protocol architectures are explained, followed by an in depth evaluation of the service implementation mechanisms. The analyses focus mainly on the control of telephony supplementary services in H.323 and SIP and are backed up by detailed examples. Although the two protocol architectures are quite similar, it is shown that there are considerable differences regarding their supplementary service architectures. H.323 (together with H.450) has been especially focused on supplementary services, smooth interworking with the PSTN, and interoperability between different implementations. In this respect, it has clear advantages for IP telephony applications. SIP has been designed with a broader scope, providing more generic syntax and semantics regarding feature definition and session description. Since the SIP standards do not describe details of possible application and service features, this bears the danger of interoperability problems, e.g, for supplementary services. SIP offers advantages for non voice over IP services and applications. A coexistence of both protocols can be foreseen, stressing the importance of interworking between them.

[1]  Robert Sparks The Refer Method , 2002 .

[2]  Henning Schulzrinne,et al.  Reliability of Provisional Responses in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) , 2002, RFC.

[3]  Jörg Ott,et al.  Change Process for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) , 2002, RFC.

[4]  Jonathan Rosenberg,et al.  SIP Caller Preferences and Callee Capabilities , 1999 .

[5]  Ben Campbell Framework for SIP Call Control Extensions , 2001 .

[6]  Robert Sparks SIP Call Control : Transfer , 2000 .

[7]  Roch Glitho,et al.  Advanced services architectures for Internet telephony: a critical overview , 2000, IEEE Netw..

[8]  Henning Schulzrinne,et al.  An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP) , 2002, RFC.

[9]  Chris Cunningham,et al.  SIP Telephony Service Examples , 2000 .

[10]  Henning Schulzrinne,et al.  A Comparison of SIP and H.323 for Internet Telephony , 1998 .

[11]  Henning Schulzrinne,et al.  The Session Initiation Protocol: Internet-centric signaling , 2000, IEEE Commun. Mag..

[12]  Adam Roach,et al.  Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event Notification , 2002, RFC.

[13]  Robert Sparks,et al.  SIP Service Examples , 2001 .

[14]  Jonathan D. Rosenberg The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE Method , 2002, RFC.

[15]  Henning Schulzrinne,et al.  Guidelines for Authors of SIP Extensions , 2000 .

[16]  Mark Handley,et al.  SIP: Session Initiation Protocol , 1999, RFC.

[17]  Vineet Kumar,et al.  Supplementary services in the H.323 IP telephony network , 1999, IEEE Commun. Mag..

[18]  Henning Schulzrinne,et al.  Feature Interaction in Internet Telephony , 2000, FIW.

[19]  Gonzalo Camarillo,et al.  Integration of Resource Management and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) , 2002, RFC.

[20]  Scott Petrack,et al.  The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP for IP Access to Telephone Call Services , 2000, RFC.