# ADR-0001 — SIP strategy: native Rust core behind a Kamailio + rtpengine edge

- **Status:** ~~Accepted~~ **Superseded** (2026-06)
- **Date:** 2026-06
- **Supersedes:** the `🔌 Edge/FFI (pjproject)` disposition in PORT_PLAN.md §1 (historical)
- **Superseded by:** [ADR-0003](0003-sip-rust-native-trunk.md) — Rust-native trunk SIP, no SBC shield

> **Superseded.** Kept as the historical record of the layered "own the Rust parser, front with
> Kamailio + rtpengine" plan. Reversed under the AI-era contact-center scope (the device interop
> tail collapses to a few documented trunk providers). See [ADR-0003](0003-sip-rust-native-trunk.md).

## Context

SIP is rutster's highest-risk subsystem. Three forces pull against each other:

1. **The security thesis.** rutster's headline is "memory-safe by construction, fuzzed
   parsers, no buffer-overflow/RCE class." The SIP parser is the *first* thing hostile
   internet packets touch — the most exposed surface in the whole system.
2. **The interop tail.** The hard, *unbounded* part of SIP isn't RFC 3261 — it's 20 years
   of device/carrier/NAT quirks. Owning that tail forever is what killed `chan_sip` and
   drove Asterisk to retreat to pjproject. It is a permanent tax, not a one-time cost.
3. **Time-to-first-call.** We want interoperable SIP trunking early, without blocking on
   a young stack maturing.

These don't resolve as a single build-vs-buy call, because they live at *different
layers* of SIP:

| Layer | CVE-class risk | Interop-tail cost | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parser (bytes off the wire) | **Highest** | Low | **Own in Rust** — cheap, and the thesis depends on it |
| Transaction / dialog / timers | Medium | Medium (bounded by RFCs) | Own over time; sans-IO Rust fits |
| Interop tail (UA quirks, NAT, carrier glare) | Low | **Unbounded, forever** | **Rent** — this is what a mature edge is for |

Pure FFI to pjproject was rejected: it pays the interop cost *and* puts C at the most
exposed seam, gutting the memory-safety headline at the one place it matters most. It is
the right default for a generic PBX and the wrong one for a security-first platform.

## Decision

A **layered** strategy:

1. **Own the SIP parser in Rust, from day one.** Build on `rsip` (message types/parsing)
   and the `ezk-sip` family (sans-IO transaction/dialog core). No hostile bytes ever hit
   a C parser. This is non-negotiable — the security story requires it.
2. **Front the public SIP edge with Kamailio + rtpengine.** Kamailio handles signaling
   (proxy, registrar, TLS termination, topology hiding, rate-limiting, anti-scan);
   **rtpengine** handles the media leg (kernel-forwarded RTP relay, SRTP/DTLS-SRTP
   bridging, ICE, NAT). This is the most-proven, most-scaled FOSS SIP edge — carrier-grade
   on the open internet. It absorbs the interop tail and gives us a hardened edge in weeks.
3. **Grow the native Rust transaction/dialog core *behind* that shield.** It matures in
   production where its early bugs aren't customer-facing outages. As it hardens,
   Kamailio's role shrinks from "does all the SIP" → "just the public edge" → optionally
   nothing.

**Chosen edge: Kamailio + rtpengine** (over OpenSIPS and drachtio). Rationale: largest
proven deployment pedigree and max-scale proxy track record; rtpengine is the canonical
media companion. OpenSIPS and drachtio remain valid alternatives (drachtio noted for a
future *programmable* edge once rutster's API model is solid).

## Topology

```
  hostile internet                 trusted core
  ───────────────►  Kamailio  ──signaling──►  rutster control plane
  (SIP trunks,      + rtpengine ──media─────►  rutster media plane
   far-end UAs)     (edge SBC)                 (native Rust SIP core
                                                grows here, behind the shield)
```

WebRTC ingress is unaffected and ships *first* (WebRTC signaling is app-defined, not SIP),
so first-call does not block on any of this.

## Consequences

- **Positive:** security headline holds (Rust parser at the edge of *our* trust boundary);
  interoperable SIP trunking available early; native stack de-risked by maturing behind a
  proven shield; no pjproject license/threading/`unsafe` entanglement.
- **Negative / costs:** an operational dependency on Kamailio + rtpengine (config,
  deployment, expertise) for the foreseeable future; two media-handling points during the
  shield phase (rtpengine at the edge, rutster media plane inside) to reason about.
- **Open follow-ups:** Kamailio↔rutster control-plane integration (KEMI vs. dispatcher vs.
  a custom control channel); how far inward rtpengine relays vs. rutster terminating media
  directly; the graduation criteria for retiring the shield.
