Hi Vijay,
if this document becomes a WG item, I agree it would be the
perfect
place to document this issue.
Cheers,
Gonzalo
Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
|
