Re: 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.

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 [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments of core SIP