On 10 jun 2011, at 03.36, Joegen Baclor wrote: > If you need IPV6 and you need it now, you may opt to deploy a SER router > as ingress and egress for sipX. IPV6 will be a tough beast to beat, > IMHO. It requires that transaction be stateful so that a UAS-UAC pair > can have V4 on the inbound leg and V6 on the outbound leg. Not to > mention, v6 requires that sipx first support multiple interfaces which > it does not currently.
Does this mean that a major change to the SipXecs code will be needed to provide native IPv6 support? I'm really interested in this so if in any way I can help to get SipXecs on the IPv6 train I'm more than happy to help testing. What's the view of the community to get IPv6 support in? I know there are quite some complications, escpecially in partial dual-stack environments, but I really think it would be great to get this going and testing started. //Staffan -- Staffan Kerker mail/sip/xmpp: [email protected] "There is absolutely no money above the 5th fret..." /Donald "Duck" Dunn
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
