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

Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com> Wed, 21 November 2007 21:58 UTC

Return-path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuxa5-0001RX-TL; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:58:01 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuxa4-0001RE-DQ for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:58:00 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuxa4-0001R1-2J for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:58:00 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iuxa3-0003cx-KS for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:57:59 -0500
Received: from sjc12-sbr-sw3-3f5.cisco.com (HELO imail.cisco.com) ([172.19.96.182]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2007 13:57:59 -0800
Received: from crabapple.local ([10.21.67.122]) by imail.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id lALKUvwH016811; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:30:57 -0800
Message-ID: <4744A9E7.40306@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:57:59 -0800
From: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] Re: URI comparison rules - IPv6 addresses
References: <0JRV00ABOC070460@jes-fe1.zx.nl> <47448C1B.7000603@alcatel-lucent.com> <4744A284.9040009@cisco.com> <4744A651.9010306@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4744A651.9010306@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1910; t=1195677058; x=1196541058; c=relaxed/simple; s=oregon; h=To:Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Michael=20Thomas=20<mat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sip]=20Re=3A=20URI=20comparison=20rules=20-=20IPv6=2 0addresses |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Vijay=20K.=20Gurbani=22=20<vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>; bh=KCKCKsuvFrr0M2vaguUHmzn8R8TSSpRKBhIl8DcVK3c=; b=HyT/Q3oqjTUdLcetv0UWPzsxjQpZQMm9ozrKxakqtLG1y7/gFYyfArQAgRktp71/naLB1oNN iIlziUXst0MJkNT6zpYNk/0g3PE0++H/RsQL5laeS9ernx8ypYqKWIeS;
Authentication-Results: imail.cisco.com; header.From=mat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/oregon verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Cc: sip <sip@ietf.org>, Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>> 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".
>
> Mike: Our domain is restricted to SIP URIs.  In other words,
> while DNS-wise, www.example.com = example.com, this does not carry
> into SIP; i.e., sip:user@sip.example.com != sip:user@example.com.
>
> I suppose the rules for SIP URI comparisons are a bit more stringent
> than DNS equivalence of names, aliases, and their resulting addresses.
>

This of course leads us into the mysterious rat hole of what constitutes
"same", but...
>> 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?
>
> No, not realistic, but entirely probable.
>
>> And if it is, why wouldn't it be as much of a problem with the IP
>> address name and a real fqdn?
>
> Because, SIP URI wise, sip:user@example.com != sip:user@192.0.2.128
> even though DNS_lookup("example.com") = "192.0.2.128".

Well, that's sort of my point: if you have something(s) writing URI's
for the same entity in different ways, it seems just as likely that they
might write them as sip:user@example.com and 192.0.2.128 as
they would by writing different representations of IPv6 addresses.
Here's another corner case: try multi-homed servers.

Let me put it another way: if there is something dire that happens if
two different representations of the same identity can't be compared
as equal, then your problem runs much deeper than the special IPv6
case.

       Mike


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip