Elwell, John wrote:
[JRE] Thanks, Vijay. However, RFC 3264 specifies only 0.0.0.0 for the
case where the address is not known in the initial offer (I am not
talking about the deprecated use for hold). It does not specify
.invalid, so I don't know what you mean by two alternative solutions.
Correct; rfc3264 does not specify .invalid. sipping-v6-transition
is supposed to update rfc3264 to do so.
The two alternative solutions are supporting "::" and ".invalid";
since at the time of writing of sipping-v6-transition, there
wasn't much IPv6 support, instead of mandating both ".invalid"
and "::", we decided to mandate only the ".invalid". Older,
IPv4 endpoints could continue using "0.0.0.0" while newer
IPv4/IPv6 endpoints will use "0.0.0.0" when communicating
with IPv4 peers and ".invalid" when doing so with IPv6 peers.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
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
