[Uri-review] Fwd: [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI scheme

"Nataraju A.B" <nataraju.sip@gmail.com> Thu, 26 April 2012 10:51 UTC

Return-Path: <nataraju.sip@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5789421F8642 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.157
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.157 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.557, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OO77LtAxGI7b for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16B8321F863B for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgm13 with SMTP id gm13so740966lbb.31 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=F4AnRLsjcQbhFCqpuH1MlpqooI6hbrUtkQKP5CfC4Dw=; b=jtpkQMdu7scGiM19rRtN8+dCIZ/j86t5ZQR+nCOxzJ2TvNZy9U34WW5S1/z+HVYjzL 9NACLZplAToUkZ044PCeWx9pgU7GdHOs76eUznDiF1eBj59IlBo9+QfoU4HMm2UHNzQg yHJOJZUkxm4+PlGBAMzGsOmLPbmwHQ1GoX1TXwtwsVg6AzYeoyk/2nc716vBQ1FHlDwC /0I9wlPiDQ5uGQCHBXnAI4cLgEXAlflxsGTNdBoaGABQV9YvvFUjGD5BawVfi46WWglc VxiMbwwOwCj/OnTffR863U7AyS/CVQAYL/xo8vS4w5UjUv7aR64Y4fg+Ff8PXvJZeYqR gWMA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id if9mr5996136lab.19.1335437473038; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+rAfUOQR6xhiogUX-TL2Lfi-ucMSQPDjcDO3U3HqcFbKY9gEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120426092725.GC27002@newphantom.local> <DAE97705-CFFF-4E41-B811-B9E14F2F8EDB@edvina.net> <20120426093707.GE27002@newphantom.local> <CA+rAfUOQR6xhiogUX-TL2Lfi-ucMSQPDjcDO3U3HqcFbKY9gEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:21:12 +0530
Message-ID: <CA+rAfUNPNNQmuXNhtNfKv-BONThk7CiHWH_YvGSWMvWXOkgAbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Nataraju A.B" <nataraju.sip@gmail.com>
To: uri-review@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04071529333f7b04be92c41b
Subject: [Uri-review] Fwd: [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI scheme
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:51:15 -0000

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl> wrote:

> Hello Olle,
> > A new URI scheme doesn't make any sense, since a SIP uri can be resolved
> to many different hosts using NAPTR/SRV records.
> This only helps with the SIP communication -- but it gives no certainty
> about RTP.  Interoperability between IPv4-only and IPv6-only relating to
> media can only be found when trying to setup a call, right?
> > A phone that is dual stack can register with two contacts, one for each
> address family. ICE will take care of media handling.
> There is no formal relation between the IP version used for SIP and used
> for RTP.  This is what I am proposing to solve with sip6:

[ABN] There is no need for any formal relation between signalling and
media. if you can share your use case you can get the useful replies.

Theoretically, it is acceptable to use different addressing schemes for
signalling and media. AFAIK, There is no constraint to use same IP version
for both media and signalling.

It is very well possible to publish the IPV6 media address (in SDP) whereas
IPv4 is being used for SIP signalling purposes.

> Thanks,
>  -Rick
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

Nataraju A.B.

Nataraju A.B.