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

"Nataraju A.B" <nataraju.sip@gmail.com> Thu, 26 April 2012 10:49 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF0121F882C; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.588, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NP3N-2pcYyWg; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE6B21F881C; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgm13 with SMTP id gm13so739662lbb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:49:17 -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 :cc:content-type; bh=Fk8HROz7Op7jRyiKrI4qwN9+35UZLbMpHz0T60xuS6M=; b=GIgGNCw/SnQVQJLIj+4xSpn0xDfTAmcrzwMCQd6qY3pNt6eAAnf0HfNFb8PM3u8z1k Vs2NDu153NV+UFWUznKQ4KxgdefnjLapdgQ2fCsrsYsRV0tUbmnZ/OZTCYSX0/TuxCyo iSM4+k/Dw1r07/PzJ/bPiL0/hsYivyWzS3/SZux3FALQLjKfs0fe/+HroEqimDXIJS3p gM03LVIU/q8HCMeNp62x0MMKay2IgpxykUA/9hbsdS44DEF/KNgTs4I9ZYsdU7A2nh7k J6RFhEXmYgdLl8LiRlLwb+QpyGx7y0FPTLr4XeRZq0h8uHBaLRXuGpXdoR7TaWcuFmou IGzw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.145.169 with SMTP id sv9mr959726lab.12.1335437356994; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.36.104 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120426093707.GE27002@newphantom.local>
References: <20120426092725.GC27002@newphantom.local> <DAE97705-CFFF-4E41-B811-B9E14F2F8EDB@edvina.net> <20120426093707.GE27002@newphantom.local>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:19:16 +0530
Message-ID: <CA+rAfUOQR6xhiogUX-TL2Lfi-ucMSQPDjcDO3U3HqcFbKY9gEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Nataraju A.B" <nataraju.sip@gmail.com>
To: Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f23509748907904be92bd9f
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:22:09 -0700
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org, "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] [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 10:49:19 -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
>



-- 
Thanks,
Nataraju A.B.