URI comparison rules - IPv6 addresses

Hi,

Brett brought this up in the SIP Implementors mailing list.
The
following IPv6 addresses are supposed to be equivalent:

[::ffff:192.0.2.128] and [::ffff:c000:280]
[2001:db8::9:1] and [2001:db8::9:01]
[0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38] and [::FFFF:129.144.52.38]

Now, let's say I need to compare sip:user1[::ffff:192.0.2.128] and
sip:user1[::ffff:c000:280]. Should we consider these URIs to
be
equivalent or not?

My proposal is that we clarify that IPv6 address comparison
happens at
the binary level, not at the textual level. We could log a
bug against
RFC3261, and try and add such a clarification to the IPv6
transition
document (I will need to ask the ADs whether or not we can
add this in
AUTH48).

Cheers,

Gonzalo


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Whatever the merits of this, please do not suggest using a
SIPPING document to change the SIP protocol. We are getting
too many of these odd updates spread around in too many
documents. If this really is a bug in RFC 3261, then use the
essential corrections process we are working on to change
this.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarilloericsson.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:17 AM
> To: sip
> Cc: Brett Tate
> Subject: [Sip] URI comparison rules - IPv6 addresses
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Brett brought this up in the SIP Implementors mailing
list. 
> The following IPv6 addresses are supposed to be
equivalent:
> 
> [::ffff:192.0.2.128] and [::ffff:c000:280]
[2001:db8::9:1] 
> and [2001:db8::9:01] [0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38] and

> [::FFFF:129.144.52.38]
> 
> Now, let's say I need to compare 
> sip:user1[::ffff:192.0.2.128] and 
> sip:user1[::ffff:c000:280]. Should we consider
these URIs to 
> be equivalent or not?
> 
> My proposal is that we clarify that IPv6 address
comparison 
> happens at the binary level, not at the textual level.
We 
> could log a bug against RFC3261, and try and add such a

> clarification to the IPv6 transition document (I will
need to 
> ask the ADs whether or not we can add this in AUTH48).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP
Protocol Use 
> sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip 
> Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the
application of sip
> 


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Brett brought this up in the SIP Implementors mailing
list. The
> following IPv6 addresses are supposed to be
equivalent:
> 
> [::ffff:192.0.2.128] and [::ffff:c000:280]
> [2001:db8::9:1] and [2001:db8::9:01]
> [0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38] and
[::FFFF:129.144.52.38]
> 
> Now, let's say I need to compare sip:user1[::ffff:192.0.2.128] and
> sip:user1[::ffff:c000:280]. Should we consider
these URIs to be
> equivalent or not?
> 
> My proposal is that we clarify that IPv6 address
comparison happens at
> the binary level, not at the textual level. We could
log a bug against
> RFC3261, and try and add such a clarification to the
IPv6 transition
> document (I will need to ask the ADs whether or not we
can add this in
> AUTH48).

Gonzalo: My only concern that I had mentioned to Brett as
well was that this should not be construed as endorsing the
notion of multiple representations of the IPv6 address in
SIP signaling.  This may cause problems in normal SIP
operations.

Consider a proxy that uses the sent-by address in a loop
detection
mechanism.  If it gets a looped request but the upstream
proxy
had now put a different representation of the IP address,
then
the proxy will not recognize that as a loop.  Admittedly,
the
upstream proxy should not be inserting different
representations
of the same IP address in each request (unless, of course it
is
malicious; but then if it is malicious, it could probably
do
damage by other means.)

Now, regarding where to put it: in v6-transition or in a
SIP
essential fix, here are some thoughts.  Insofar as we are
talking
about URI comparison, this clarification is probably best
put
in S19.1.4 (URI Comparison) of rfc3261.  We already have a
SIP essential fix document that fixes the IPv6 ABNF in
rfc3261
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gurbani-sip-ipv6-a
bnf-fix-00);
this clarification could be tacked on in that draft if the
WG
agrees.  Thoughts?

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA)
Email: vkg{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW:   http://www.al
catel-lucent.com/bell-labs


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip