Hi, Brett brought this up in the SIP Implementors mailing list. The following IPv6 addresses are supposed to be equivalent:
[::ffff:192.0.2.128] and [::ffff:c000:280] [2001:db8::9:1] and [2001:db8::9:01] [0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38] and [::FFFF:129.144.52.38] Now, let's say I need to compare sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]::ffff:192.0.2.128] and sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]::ffff:c000:280]. Should we consider these URIs to be equivalent or not? My proposal is that we clarify that IPv6 address comparison happens at the binary level, not at the textual level. We could log a bug against RFC3261, and try and add such a clarification to the IPv6 transition document (I will need to ask the ADs whether or not we can add this in AUTH48). Cheers, Gonzalo _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
