Re: [Sip] Re: URI comparison rules

   From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>

   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.

Even worse, in some places, including some early RFCs, the leading
zero is used to indicate that the octet is represented in octal!

But I think Jeroen's point is actually well-taken, when comparing
representations of IP addresses (not DNS names), the comparison is
implicitly of the address represented, not the textual
representation.  And this applies in IPv4 as well as IPv6.

In regard to loop detection, there are two approaches:  (1) Whatever
attempts to detect loops can canonicalize the addresses before
comparing them or whatever.  (2) Since there are a limited number of
likely representations of any address, having different entities use
different representations will only delay loop detection, not prevent
it.  And loops will be detected even if address comparisons have
occasional false negatives.

Dale

_______________________________________________
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

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