> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:55 AM > To: Hadriel Kaplan; mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sipping@xxxxxxxx > > Recall the original plan for v6 was 'just install it, and > everything works'. That failed. The industry has figured > that out, and IETF is trying to do its part to correct that > failure. Actually I think we're like 0 for 3 or something so far. > I acknowledge that SIP / SIPPING have not had a discussion > of how to best accomplish the v4/v6 transition, especially > in light of the failure of dual-stack hosts and in light > of the emergence of IPv6+NAT44 ("dual-stack lite") and > NAT64. These are all relatively 'new', of course, but we > are somewhat running out of time to navel gaze. V4 addresses > continue to be used up, even "due to this economic climate" > (I mention that solely because I'm sure someone would tell > me that the consumption of IPv4 addresses has slowed "due > to the current economic climate"). > > > > Of course, if they just grin and expect the SBC solves the > > > problem, we can all sleep easier at night. > > > > I didn't say that, and I don't even believe it. There are > > many SIP domains which have no SBC's, and shouldn't. For > > them, ICE is great. For others, not so much. We should let > > the two communicate. > > Yes, we need the two to communicate. > > It sounds a lunch or bar-BoF is in order? Yeah. First round's on me, unless it's a ton of folks - due to the current economic climate. ;) -hadriel _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
