Subject: Re: [Sipping] RE: draft-rosenberg-sipping-ice-01 & draft-camarill o-mmusic-alt-0 2.tx t

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:54:38 -0800

On 10/26/03 9:21 AM, "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Good point. Thanks.
> 
> However, reading through STUN carefully, it seems to me that it only
> allows for IPv4 addresses in the STUN messages themselves. For
> example, the MAPPED-ADDRESS only allows for IPv4 addresses at this point.
> Unless of course we extend it. (It currently only has a 0x01 Family
> corresponding to IPv4).
>

Ah yes, very interesting to read STUN. The address family is forced to 1
which represents V4. Of course if this was the only value it could ever
have, then there would be no point in having the field or support for
variable length address at all. If you set the value to v6 family (violating
the RFC) then some implementation seem to happily work with v6. Go figure
:-) 

I would not want to guess why v6 support was not included. 

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP