-----Message d'origine----- De : Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Envoyé : mardi 10 mars 2009 04:24 À : Dan Wing; BOUCADAIR Mohamed RD-CORE-CAE; sipping@xxxxxxxx Objet : RE: TR: I-DAction:draft-boucadair-sipping-ipv6-atypes-00.txt > -----Original Message----- > From: sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:sipping-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Dan Wing > Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:17 PM > > Yes, that is because SIP and SIPPING documents all require ICE for > IPv4/IPv6 interworking. Your document is a departure from requiring > ICE, and puts the onus on the SBC to perform the interworking. I'm > not saying that is wrong; rather, it is different. I don't believe all SIP/SIPPING docs require ICE for IPv4/IPv6. There are two current RFC's for ANAT, which are not deprecated (yet). I know and you know it's broken, but the alternative for some of us is that media will simply always be the same address family as signaling. (which is not optimal, and it doesn't have to be that way - we can fix it methinks) > But for the rest of the Internet, where those assumptions cannot be > made, I do like the *idea* of atypes, I'm not sure the idea of atypes is necessary or sufficient to solve the problem. We need a form of ANAT which works with legacy devices cleanly. > but I would > suggest some changes to it (e.g., don't use multiple m-lines because > they cause harm. Yes I agree with that requirement a lot. Med: I think that we agree that for optimisation purposes, we need to encloses several IP address types in the SDP part. ANAT is a good candidate than ICE. We can start from there, if there is a consensus, to propose a more simplified syntax. _______________________________________________ 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
