[SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 baseline - IPv6

[Elwell, John]

Henning,

I agree with what Greg, Francois, Martin and Joanne are saying. I would
like to see the bar set quite low, to encourage implementations and
deployments of SIPconnect. In practical terms, deployments both from the
enterprise side and the service provider side will be IPv4 in the near
term, so forcing people to implement and test something their customers
are not asking for will not help us to reach a critical mass of
SIPconnect implementations and deployments.

If we want to specify it as an option, as Francois proposed, that would
be acceptable, but it could equally well wait for a future version,
e.g., 1.2.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs at cs.columbia.edu] 
> Sent: 14 August 2008 03:10
> To: Zweig, Greg
> Cc: PBX; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; Francois Audet; Elwell, 
> John; Spencer Dawkins; techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] SIPconnect 1.1 baseline - IPv6
> 
> 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.
> >
> 
>