> -----Original Message----- > From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:vkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 28 January 2010 20:10 > To: Elwell, John > Cc: sipping@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Sipping] Question on draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-07 > > 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. [JRE] My misunderstanding. I thought you were implying there had been two options with IPv4 that we were trying to avoid with IPv6. > > 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. [JRE] Thanks, John > > 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
