RE: [Sip] Re: URI comparison rules

Vijay,
It's not only IPv6: what about 127.0.0.1 versus 127.000.000.1?

Regards,
Jeroen

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Aan: "Gonzalo Camarillo" <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
CC: "sip" <sip@ietf.org>; "Brett Tate" <brett@broadsoft.com>
Verzonden: 21-11-07 16:37
Onderwerp: [Sip] Re: URI comparison rules - IPv6 addresses

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> 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).

Gonzalo: My only concern that I had mentioned to Brett as
well was that this should not be construed as endorsing the
notion of multiple representations of the IPv6 address in
SIP signaling.  This may cause problems in normal SIP operations.

Consider a proxy that uses the sent-by address in a loop detection

_______________________________________________
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