[SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 baseline - IPv6

[Francois Audet]

Hi Henning,

My point is really that being SIPConnect compliant shouldn't force you to
support IPv6: that is raising the bar too high.

But again, if we think the market is ready (or close to ready) to have
requirements for IPv6, we can do it. I believe a set of requirements for
IPv6 compliance (when appropriate) would be OK. A vendor or operator would
then be able to say "SIPForum-compliant for IPv4" or "SIPForum-compliant for
IPv4/IPv6". That would be satisfactory to me, provided we have enough demand
for IPv6 specifications.

PS: I don't think we should get into NAT-as-a-Firewall issues in this
interop specification. I agree with your point, but I also agree with the
other point that IPv6 won't mean the end of NATs.


On Aug13 2008 19:09 , "Henning SCHULZRINNE" <hgs at cs.columbia.edu> wrote:

> Nobody is forcing anybody to run IPv6 if they don't want to, but
> software implementations compliant with the spec should allow people
> to easily run IPv6. Not everyone confuses a NAT box with a firewall.
> 
> On Aug 13, 2008, at 10:01 PM, Zweig, Greg wrote:
> 
>> While I appreciate that you are encouraging the group to aspire to a
>> better solution, I think you are raising the bar too high in the
>> near term.  There are a myriad of practical barriers in both the
>> carrier and CPE environment that make "legislating" an IPV6 solution
>> impractical.  This is not just a matter of having the will to
>> implement an advanced solution, there needs to be a practical way to
>> migrate to IPV6 for businesses of all sizes.  I think we are early
>> in that migration cycle, so we need to be pragmatic.  We should
>> encourage it not force it.
>> 
>> From a technical perspective I think you are overlooking the fact
>> that many businesses use NAT as a security tool.  Many are not
>> anxious to add another layer of security to lightweight devices
>> (like phones) to protect them from the additional dangers associated
>> with maintaing a public identity.  They don't want every device to
>> have a routable address.
>> 
>