Re: [Sip] Re: URI comparison rules - IPv6 addresses

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
>> Vijay,
>> It's not only IPv6: what about 127.0.0.1 versus 127.000.000.1?
>
> Jeroen: Pedantically speaking, you are probably right.  But
> in practice we do not generally see leading zeros in an IPv4
> octet.
>
> IPv6, with its compressed notation and the need to represent
> hybrid addresses (like IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses) makes the
> representation issue more acute.  For instance, the low-order
> 32 bits of an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address can be represented using
> the familiar dotted-decimal notation, or they can be represented
> using the IPv6 colon-separated notation.
>
> But your point is well taken: if we put some text about the
> binary equivalence of different textual representations of an
> IPv6 address, I guess we should do so for IPv4 as well.

Doesn't this sort of slide down the slippery slope of understanding
the semantics of the URI for comparison? For example, why can't
you make the same kind of argument for www.example.com and
example.com since they're pretty much synonymous these days?
And for that matter what about comparing example.com and, oh
say, its A(AAA) record? They're the "same", FSVO "same".

Maybe I missed the first post, but is it realistic that something(s)
producing URI's for the same target would create their name in
different manners? And if it is, why wouldn't it be as much of a
problem with the IP address name and a real fqdn?

       Mike


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip