IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sipping] Question on draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-07

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 28 January 2010 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771CF3A659A for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:09:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yNFw1uz+Aawy for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:09:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798FD3A6844 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:09:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-63.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id o0SK9Y2Y017365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:09:34 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [135.185.236.17] (il0015vkg1.ih.lucent.com [135.185.236.17]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id o0SK9Y1t011399; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:09:34 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4B61EEFE.3030605@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:09:34 -0600
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Bell Labs Security Technology Research Group
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAB4EC49D8@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4B61E8AE.6090309@alcatel-lucent.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAB4EC49F5@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAB4EC49F5@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
Cc: "sipping@ietf.org" <sipping@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Question on draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-07
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:09:16 -0000

Elwell, John wrote:
> [JRE] Thanks, Vijay. However, RFC 3264 specifies only 0.0.0.0 for the
> case where the address is not known in the initial offer (I am not
> talking about the deprecated use for hold). It does not specify
> .invalid, so I don't know what you mean by two alternative solutions.

Correct; rfc3264 does not specify .invalid.  sipping-v6-transition
is supposed to update rfc3264 to do so.

The two alternative solutions are supporting "::" and ".invalid";
since at the time of writing of sipping-v6-transition, there
wasn't much IPv6 support, instead of mandating both ".invalid"
and "::", we decided to mandate only the ".invalid".  Older,
IPv4 endpoints could continue using "0.0.0.0" while newer
IPv4/IPv6 endpoints will use "0.0.0.0" when communicating
with IPv4 peers and ".invalid" when doing so with IPv6 peers.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email