Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-02.txt WGLC

["haofeng Zhang" <hfzhang.cn@gmail.com>]

Should we consider another problem relating to IPv6 address selection in this draft?

Think about this scenario in IPv6 network when SIP protocol is used:
                                   _______________
                                  |  IPv6 network|________ SIP Server
                                  |______________|
                                    /           \  
                                   /             \
                                  /               \
                              Router 1        Router 2
                                 |                 |
                                 |                 |
                           SIP Phone tiger      SIP Phone  Deer  
                                 |                 |
                                 |_________________|
                                          |
                                       Router 3

In this situation, SIP Phone Tiger and Deer both have multiple addresses, 
E.g for tiger, both R1 and R3 will assign address to it, and so as sip phone Deer.

Considering a sip request message initiated by tiger to sip server, according to RFC3484, most likely the IPv6 address assigned by Router 1 will be used as the source, since the destination is sip server.  And it's perfectly fine  for all the signaling message between  tiger/sip server, and deer/sip server pairs.

But it's not the case for the media traffic. Obviously, for both tiger and deer, the addresses assigned by R3 should be used for media traffic since they belong to the same subnet. So the problem is, should tiger's SDP message carry all the IPv6 addresses it has to deer so that deer can make the right decision; or, should a mechanism be used between tiger and deer to exchange the address selection information for SDP message?

RFC3266(IPv6 support of SDP) doesn't address this. So I am not sure whether this problem should be addressed in this draft or another. Or have we already had a solution?

2007/6/21, Fred Baker < fred@cisco.com>:

This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-ietf-
v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-
req-02.txt. Please read these now. If you find nits (spelling errors,
minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you
find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding
additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your
comments to the list.

We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the
documents as well as its content. If you have read the documents and
believe them to be of operational utility, that is also an important
comment to make. If you have read them and think they miss an
important consideration, that is very important.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>