Re: SIP now IPv6

[[e-mail]]

>>> as a purely practical matter, how can we do anything but provide an
>>> assignment to avoid collision among different IP proposals - given
>>> we want to test in live environments where possible?
>>> 
>>> Vint

Vint, 

It is clear that SIP needs an IP version number.  At the IETF I suggested 
that Steve apply for 6 and that Paul should apply for v8 for PIP.  (TUBA 
does not suffer this requirement since it uses standards that are 
widely implemented and the Internet infrastructure is already running 
CLNP.)

Unfortunately, I don't think I am the average reader and/or writer in 
forums such as Comm Week, Network World, com-priv, etc.  Many people
will see the declaration of SIP as IP v6 from the background of 
extensive discussions on what should be the next version of IP.  Also, 
remember that the IESG is due to provide a recommendation to the IAB 
late this year.  It is quite possible that many will read this as
the result of the IESG deliberations.  Don't assume that anybody, even
the IETF at this point in time, understands the current constitution of 
the I**5 (IETF, IESG, IAB, ISOC, IANA).

I do not envy Jon's job in this matter.  May I suggest we all need to be
prepared to explain to the network community in general that this is an
action by the IANA so that experimentation with SIP can commence and
that it is unrelated to IESG and IAB standards activities.

I don't think hwb's comments were meant to say that SIP should not 
get IPv6.  It sounded to me that he was addressing the issue of 
public perception which I agree is a very important issue in light  that 
there was very little context for the announcement for SIP as IPv6.  
With a little context I suspect there would be little reason for 
all of us to be yacking over the christmas holidays ...

cheers,

peter