[Sipping] Re: [Sip-implementors] Recommendations for IPv6 in SIP

Kumar, Lalith wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
> 
> Some initial thoughts that came across my mind while glancing thru the
> draft.

Lalith: Thanks for the feedback.

> One more transition scenario using NAPT-PT, and ALGs can be added to the
> draft. In this scenario, the Server application can be deployed in the
> core network, the ALGs, and NA(P)T-PT will actually take care of the
> protocol translation. 

NAPT and ALG are system level issues; right now, these are being
tracked by Gonzalo's I-D (see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-camarillo-sipping-v6-transition-00.txt -- mind the line break).

> And the reg message of section 4.2 is having a valid IPv6 address as
> part of req URI. One will not be able to identify that it includes port,
> unless the IP address is fully expanded (or doesn't have a '::' in it). 

Ah, good catch.  Yes.  This will be modified in the next rev.

> And I couldn't really appreciate the usage of IPv6 prefix in SIP
> requests.
> When exactly will we be using such addresses?

Probably never in end user applications (since they will not
ordinarily specify a prefix).  I wasn't sure whether torture
test cases should include one with a prefix or not ... I may take
it out in the next rev.

If you have further examples of torture tests, please send them
to either Chris or me.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Ph.D.  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566     Voice: +1 630 224 0216

[Sipping] Re: [Sip-implementors] Recommendations for IPv6 in SIP

Attachment: smime.p7s