IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sip] URI comparison rules - IPv6 addresses

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Wed, 21 November 2007 10:53 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 1IunDP-0003AT-BQ; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:53:55 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IunDN-0003AN-O0 for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:53:53 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IunDN-0003AE-7t for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:53:53 -0500
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IunDM-0003nC-In for sip@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:53:53 -0500
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id F028D21077; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:53:51 +0100 (CET)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-b1ea5bb00000459d-0c-47440e3ff191
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id DB38A200CE; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:53:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:53:51 +0100
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:53:50 +0100
Received: from [131.160.36.58] (E000FB0F665DD.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.36.58]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0882461; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:53:50 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <47440E3E.10206@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:53:50 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] URI comparison rules - IPv6 addresses
References: <BBE61D1553D8A34F812FF87377B2935F01CCDE6A@ATL1VEXC020.usdom003.tco.tc><4743F62A.8040903@ericsson.com> <4743F78D.4070705@ericsson.com> <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918001933BB9@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918001933BB9@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2007 10:53:51.0494 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD51EA60:01C82C2C]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Cc: sip <sip@ietf.org>, Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.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

Hi,

it is not really a bug. It is a clarification.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> Whatever the merits of this, please do not suggest using a SIPPING document to change the SIP protocol. We are getting too many of these odd updates spread around in too many documents. If this really is a bug in RFC 3261, then use the essential corrections process we are working on to change this.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Keith
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:17 AM
>> To: sip
>> Cc: Brett Tate
>> Subject: [Sip] URI comparison rules - IPv6 addresses
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Brett brought this up in the SIP Implementors mailing list. 
>> The following IPv6 addresses are supposed to be equivalent:
>>
>> [::ffff:192.0.2.128] and [::ffff:c000:280] [2001:db8::9:1] 
>> and [2001:db8::9:01] [0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38] and 
>> [::FFFF:129.144.52.38]
>>
>> Now, let's say I need to compare 
>> sip:user1@[::ffff:192.0.2.128] and 
>> sip:user1@[::ffff:c000:280]. Should we consider these URIs to 
>> be equivalent or not?
>>
>> My proposal is that we clarify that IPv6 address comparison 
>> happens at the binary level, not at the textual level. We 
>> could log a bug against RFC3261, and try and add such a 
>> clarification to the IPv6 transition document (I will need to 
>> ask the ADs whether or not we can add this in AUTH48).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>



_______________________________________________
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email