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

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com> Thu, 26 April 2012 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <saul@ag-projects.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 A982821F87D8; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 oPax107vMr5c; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node06.dns-hosting.info [85.17.186.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD8621F87C1; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 560ABB01C0; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:36:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from imac.saghul.lan (ip3e830637.speed.planet.nl [62.131.6.55]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4F84B019B; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:36:29 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120426093707.GE27002@newphantom.local>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:36:29 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D5A98BB5-0777-48A9-9FAF-B3831959F956@ag-projects.com>
References: <20120426092725.GC27002@newphantom.local> <DAE97705-CFFF-4E41-B811-B9E14F2F8EDB@edvina.net> <20120426093707.GE27002@newphantom.local>
To: Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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 09:36:32 -0000

Hi Rick,

[snip]
> 
> 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:
> 

Why would you need that? If running in a dual stacked environment maybe some firewall policy won't allow your RTP packets to go out through IPv6 but they could go out through IPv4, ICE can pick the best path for media regardless of signaling.


Regards,

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects