[SIPForum-techwg] IPv6 Text for SIPconnect 1.1

[Timothy Winters]

Hello,
	Cullen is right that the flaw with the passage below is that if they  
have switch the network type they are using there has to be some type  
of transition mechanism in place.  There are some mechanisms that will  
work at the IP layer that SHOULD prevent this from happening (6to4,  
NAT-PT, NAT66).  There are also options in SIP world to fix this  
problem (ICE).  Ultimately any of this solutions would cause a lot to  
be added to the spec at this point.  This is only a problem when you  
flip from v4 to v6.  If you really wanted to say something about  
working in IPv6, you could say works in IPv4-only and IPv6-only  
environments and leave the rest for later.

Regards,
Tim

On Feb 12, 2009, at 2:22 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

>
> Imagine my enterprise is v6 and yours is v4 and we both have SIP
> Connect compliant systems and we have a service provider that has a
> dual stack proxy or SBC to route between us.  Everyone has the SIP
> Forum LOGO but I sure can't phone you. Sounds broken to me from a
> customer point of view. I suspect you will need a lot more than you
> have in the spec right now for this to work with v6 transition - the
> most practical schemes I have heard involve ICE so I suspect we might
> want to defer this.
>
> On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:38 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
>
>> I am not certain - that's why I raised it as a question.  It would
>> be nice if it were true. Let's hear other opinions.
>>
>> John
>>
>> From: Eric Burger [mailto:eburger at sipforum.org]
>> Sent: 02 February 2009 21:24
>> To: Elwell, John
>> Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
>> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] IPv6 Text for SIPconnect 1.1
>>
>> The question is, do we know if that is true?
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
>> From: Eric Burger [mailto:eburger at sipforum.org]
>> Sent: 02 February 2009 12:30
>> To: Elwell, John
>> Cc: techwg at sipforum.org
>> Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] IPv6 Text for SIPconnect 1.1
>>
>> Your edits are good: you are right, we should chose explicit versus
>> hard-coded (I would go for explicit). Perhaps we over promise, so I
>> can see taking out the "should just work" language. What I hoped to
>> capture is the idea that while we do not mandate IPv6, we think if
>> the SIP-PBX and the SP-SSE are IPv6 capable and communicate over
>> IPv6, nothing changes in SIPconnect.
>> [JRE] Can we say something like "The provisions of this SIPconnect
>> 1.1 specification are not impacted by whether the underlying network
>> infrastructure uses IPv4 or IPv6"?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> techwg mailing list
>> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
>> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg