[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-camarillo-sipping-v6-transition) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 6157

SIPPING Working Group                                       G. Camarillo
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Updates: 3264 (if approved)                                  K. El Malki
Expires: March 12, 2007                                          Athonet
                                                         V. Gurbani, Ed.
                                          Lucent Technologies, Inc./Bell
                                                            Laboratories
                                                       September 8, 2006


        IPv6 Transition in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
                  draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-04

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 12, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document describes how IPv4 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
   user agents can communicate with IPv6 SIP user agents (and vice
   versa) at the signaling layer as well as exchange media once the
   session has been successfully set up.  Both single- and dual-stack



Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


   (i.e., an IPv4-only and an IPv4/IPv6) user agents are considered.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  The Signaling Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1   Proxy Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       3.1.1   Relaying Requests Across Different Networks  . . . . .  5
     3.2   UA Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  The Media Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1   Updates to RFC3264 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2   Initial Offer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3   Connectivity Checks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Contacting Servers: Interaction of RFC3263 and RFC3484 . . . . 10
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     9.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     9.2   Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   A.  Sample IPv4/IPv6 DNS File  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 16



























Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


1.  Introduction

   SIP [3] is a protocol to establish and manage multimedia sessions.
   After the exchange of signaling messages, SIP endpoints generally
   exchange session, or media traffic, which is not transported using
   SIP but a different protocol.  For example, audio streams are
   typically carried using Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP [16]).

   Consequently, a complete solution for IPv6 transition needs to handle
   both the signaling layer and the media layer.  While unextended SIP
   can handle heterogeneous IPv6/IPv4 networks at the signaling layer as
   long as proxy servers and their Domain Name Service (DNS) entries are
   properly configured, user agents using different networks and address
   spaces must implement extensions in order to exchange media between
   them.

   This document addresses the systems-level issues to make SIP work
   successfully between IPv4 and IPv6.  Section 3 and Section 4 provide
   discussions on the topics that are pertinent to the signaling layer
   and media layer, respectively, to establish a successful session
   between heterogeneous IPv4/IPv6 networks.

2.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
   RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
   described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for
   compliant implementations.

   IPv4-only user agent: An IPv4-only user agent supports SIP signaling
      and media only on the IPv4 network.  It does not understand IPv6
      addresses.

   IPv4-only node: A host that implements only IPv4.  An IPv4-only node
      does not understand IPv6.  The installed base of IPv4 hosts
      existing before the transition begins are IPv4-only nodes.

   IPv6-only user agent: An IPv6-only user agent supports SIP signaling
      and media only on the IPv6 network.  It does not understand IPv4
      addresses.

   IPv6-only node: A host that implements IPv6 and does not implement
      IPv4.







Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006



   IPv4/IPv6 node: A host that implements both IPv4 and IPv6; such hosts
      are also known as "dual-stack" hosts.

   IPv4/IPv6 user agent: An user agent that supports SIP signaling and
      media on both IPv4 and IPv6 networks.

   IPv4/IPv6 proxy: A proxy that supports SIP signaling on both IPv4 and
      IPv6 networks.

3.  The Signaling Layer

   An autonomous domain sends and receives SIP traffic to and from its
   user agents as well as to and from other autonomous domains.  This
   section describes the issues related to such traffic exchanges at the
   signaling layer; i.e., the flow of SIP messages between participants
   in order to establish the session.  We assume that the network
   administrators appropriately configure their networks such that the
   SIP servers within an autonomous domain can communicate between
   themselves.  While this section contains systems-level issues, it
   does not address implementation-specific issues (i.e., parser torture
   tests for IPv6 addresses).  Such topics are outlined in detail in a
   separate document [19].

3.1  Proxy Behavior

   User agents typically send SIP traffic to an outbound proxy, which
   takes care of routing it forward.  In order to support both IPv4-only
   and IPv6-only user agents, it is RECOMMENDED that domains deploy
   dual-stack outbound proxy servers or, alternatively, deploy both
   IPv4-only and IPv6-only outbound proxies.  Furthermore, there SHOULD
   exist both IPv6 and IPv4 DNS entries for outbound proxy servers.
   This allows the user agent to query DNS and obtain an IP address most
   appropriate for its use (i.e., an IPv4-only user agent will query DNS
   for A resource records (RR), an IPv6-only user agent will query DNS
   for AAAA RRs, and a dual-stack user agent will query DNS for all RRs
   and choose a specific network.)

   Some domains provide automatic means for user agents to discover
   their proxy servers.  It is RECOMMENDED that domains implement
   appropriate discovery mechanisms to provide user agents with the IPv4
   and IPv6 addresses of their outbound proxy servers.  For example, a
   domain may support both the DHCPv4 [14] and the DHCPv6 [13] options
   for SIP servers.

   On the receiving side, user agents inside an autonomous domain
   receive SIP traffic from sources external to their domain through an
   inbound proxy, which is sometimes co-located with the registrar of



Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


   the domain.  As was the case previously, it is RECOMMENDED that
   domains deploy dual-stack inbound proxies or, alternatively, deploy
   both IPv4-only and IPv6-only inbound proxy servers.  This allows the
   user agents external to the autonomous domain to query DNS and
   receive an IP address of the inbound proxy most appropriate for its
   use (i.e., an IPv4-only user agent will query DNS for A RRs, an IPv6-
   only user agent will query DNS for AAAA RRs, and a dual-stack user
   agent will query DNS for all RRs and choose a specific network.)

   Proxies MUST follow the recommendations in Section 5 to determine the
   order of the downstream servers to contact when routing a request.

3.1.1  Relaying Requests Across Different Networks

   A SIP proxy server that receives a request using IPv6 and relays it
   to a user agent (or another downstream proxy) using IPv4, and vice
   versa, needs to remain in the path traversed by subsequent requests.
   Therefore, such a SIP proxy server MUST be configured to Record-Route
   in that situation.

      Note that while this is the recommended practice, some problems
      may still arise if a RFC2543 [17] endpoint is involved in
      signaling.  Since the ABNF in RFC2543 did not include production
      rules to parse IPv6 network identifiers, there is a good chance
      that a RFC2543-only compliant endpoint is not able to parse or
      regenerate IPv6 network identifiers in headers.  Thus, despite a
      dual-stack proxy inserting itself into the session establishment,
      the endpoint itself may not succeed in the signaling establishment
      phase.

      This is generally not a problem with RFC3261 endpoints; even if
      such an endpoint runs on an IPv4-only node, it still is able to
      parse and regenerate IPv6 network identifiers.

   Relaying a request across different networks in this manner has other
   ramifications.  For one, the proxy doing the relaying must remain in
   the signaling path for the duration of the session; otherwise, the
   upstream client and the downstream server would not be able to
   communicate directly.  Second, to remain in the signaling path, the
   proxy MUST insert one or two Record-Route headers: if the proxy is
   inserting an URI that contains a fully qualified domain name of the
   proxy, and that name has both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in DNS, then
   inserting one Record-Route header suffices.  But if the proxy is
   inserting a IP addresses in the Record-Route header, then it must
   insert two such headers; the first Record-Route header contains the
   proxy's IP address that is compatible with the network type of the
   downstream server, and the second Record-Route header contains the
   proxy's IP address that is compatible with the upstream client.



Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


   An example helps illustrate this behavior.  In the example, we use
   only those headers pertinent to the discussion.  Other headers have
   been omitted for brevity.  In addition, only the INVITE request and
   final response (200 OK) are shown; it is not the intent of the
   example to provide a complete call flow that includes provisional
   responses and other requests.

   In this example, proxy P, responsible for the domain example.com,
   receives a request from an IPv4-only upstream client.  It proxies
   this request to an IPv6-only downstream server.  Proxy P is running
   on a dual-stack host; on the IPv4 interface, it has an address of
   192.0.2.1 and on the IPv6 interface, it is configured with an address
   of 2001:db8::1 ( Appendix A contains a sample DNS zone file entry
   that has been populated with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.)


     UAC            Proxy          UAS
    (IPv4)            P           (IPv6)
      |          (IPv4/IPv6)         |
      |               |              |
      +---F1--------->|              |
      |               +---F2-------->|
      |               |              |
      |               |<--F3---------+
      |<--F4----------+              |
     ...             ...            ...
      |               |              |
      V               V              V

   F1: INVITE sip:alice@example.com SIP/2.0
       ...

   F2: INVITE sip:alice@2001:db8::10 SIP/2.0
       Record-Route: <sip:2001:db8::1;lr>
       Record-Route: <sip:192.0.2.1;lr>
       ...

   F3: SIP/2.0 200 OK
       Record-Route: <sip:2001:db8::1;lr>
       Record-Route: <sip:192.0.2.1;lr>
       ...

   F4: SIP/2.0 200 OK
       Record-Route: <sip:2001:db8::1;lr>
       Record-Route: <sip:192.0.2.1;lr>
       ...

   Figure 1: Relaying requests across different networks.



Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


   When the UAS gets an INVITE and it accepts the invitation, sends a
   200 OK (F3) and forms a route set.  The first entry in its route set
   corresponds to the proxy's IPv6 interface.  Similarly, when the 200
   OK reaches the UAC, it creates a route set by following the
   guidelines of RFC3261 and reversing the Record-Route headers.  The
   first entry in its route set corresponds to the proxy's IPv4
   interface.  In this manner, both the UAC and the UAS will have the
   correct address of the proxy to which they can target subsequent
   requests.

   Alternatively, the proxy could have inserted its fully-qualified
   domain name (FQDN) in the Record-Route URI and the result would have
   been the same.  This is because the proxy has both IPv4 and IPv6
   addresses in the DNS; thus the URI resolution would have yielded an
   IPv4 address to the UAC and an IPv6 address to the UAS.

3.2  UA Behavior

   Clients MUST follow the recommendations in Section 5 to determine the
   order of the downstream servers to contact when routing a request.

   When a request is to be sent on a branch, certain identifiers are
   computed.  Specifically, a branch ID is computed and inserted in the
   topmost Via header, and certain headers are used to generate
   signatures for Identity [20] and Authenticated Identity Body (AIB
   [18]).  The headers that are used to generate signatures can contain
   either IP addresses or FQDNs; consequently, an implementation may
   choose to insert an IP address in such headers.  This choice has
   ramifications, as discussed next.

   When a request is re-targeted to a new branch because the old one did
   not elicit a response, and the request is now destined to a new
   network (i.e., old request went to an IPv4 downstream server while
   the new one is destined towards an IPv6 downstream server) care must
   be taken in re-computing the identifiers.  More specifically,
   implementations MUST ensure that, at the very least, the branch id is
   recomputed.  Additionally, if IP addresses were used to generate the
   signatures for the Identity header and AIB, these signatures MUST be
   recomputed.

   To avoid recomputing the signatures used in the Identity header or
   the AIB, it is RECOMMENDED that SIP user agents use FQDNs in those
   headers that are used as the basis for the Identity header and the
   AIB.

4.  The Media Layer

   SIP establishes media sessions using the offer/answer model [4].  One



Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


   endpoint, the offerer, sends a session description (the offer) to the
   other endpoint, the answerer.  The offer contains all the media
   parameters needed to exchange media with the offerer: codecs,
   transport addresses, protocols to transfer media, etc.

   When the answerer receives an offer, it elaborates an answer and
   sends it back to the offerer.  The answer contains the media
   parameters that the answerer is willing to use for that particular
   session.  Offer and answer are written using a session description
   protocol.  The most widespread protocol to describe sessions at
   present is called, aptly enough, the Session Description Protocol
   (SDP[2]).

   A direct offer/answer exchange between an IPv4-only user agent and an
   IPv6-only user agent does not result in the establishment of a
   session.  The IPv6-only user agent wishes to receive media on one or
   more IPv6 addresses, but the IPv4-only user agent cannot send media
   to these addresses, and generally does not even understand their
   format.  Consequently, user agents need a means to obtain both IPv4
   and IPv6 addresses to receive media and to place them in offers and
   answers.

      This IP version incompatibility problem would not exist if hosts
      implementing IPv6 also implemented IPv4, and were configured with
      both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.  In such a case, a UA would be able
      to pick a compatible media transport address type to communicate
      with each other.

   Pragmatism dictates that IPv6 user agents undertake the greater
   burden in the transition period.  Since IPv6 user agents are not
   widely deployed yet, it seems appropriate that IPv6 user agents
   obtain IPv4 addresses instead of mandating an upgrade on the
   installed IPv4 base.  Furthermore, IPv6 user agents are expected to
   be dual-stacked and thus also support IPv4, unlike the larger IPv4-
   only user agent base that does not or cannot support IPv6.

   However, there will be deployments where an IPv4/IPv6 node is unable
   to use both interfaces natively at the same time,  and instead, runs
   as an IPv6-only node.  Examples of such deployments include:

   1.  Networks where public IPv4 addresses are scarce and it is
       preferable to make large deployments only on IPv6.
   2.  Networks utilizing Layer-2's that do not support contemporary
       IPv4 and IPv6 usage on the same link (e.g., the 3rd Generation
       Partnership Project, 3GPP).

   An IPv6-only node SHOULD be able to send and receive media using IPv4
   addresses, but if it cannot, it SHOULD have the use of an



Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


   administratively associated relay (i.e., TURN [11]) that allows it to
   indirectly send and receive media using IPv4.

   The advantage of this strategy is that the installed base of IPv4
   user agents continues to function unchanged, but it requires an
   operator that introduces IPv6 to provide additional servers for
   allowing IPv6 user agents to obtain IPv4 addresses.  This strategy
   may come at an additional cost to SIP operators deploying IPv6.
   However, since IPv4-only SIP operators are also likely to deploy TURN
   relays for NAT (Network Address Translators) traversal, the
   additional effort to deploy IPv6 in an IPv4 SIP network should be
   limited in this aspect.

4.1  Updates to RFC3264

   This section provides a normative update to RFC 3264 [4] in the
   following manner:

   1.  In some cases, especially those dealing with third party call
       control (see Section 4.2 of [15]), there arises a need to specify
       the IPv6 equivalent of the IPv4 unspecified address (0.0.0.0) in
       the SDP offer.  Instead of using the IPv6 unspecified address
       (i.e., ::), implementations are REQUIRED to use a domain name
       within the .invalid DNS top level domain.
   2.  Each media description in the SDP answer MUST use the same
       network type as the corresponding media description in the offer.
       Thus, if the applicable "c=" line for a media description in the
       offer contained a network type with the value "IP4", the
       applicable "c=" line for the corresponding media description in
       the answer MUST contain "IP4" as the network type.  Similarly, if
       the applicable "c=" line for a media description in the offer
       contained a network type with the value "IP6", the applicable
       "c=" line for the corresponding media description in the answer
       MUST contain "IP6" as the network type.

4.2  Initial Offer

   We now describe how user agents can gather addresses by following the
   ICE (Interactive Connectivity Establishment) [10] procedures and how
   they can encode them in an SDP session description using the ANAT
   semantics [6] for the SDP grouping framework [5].

   ICE is protocol that allows a pair of user agents to arrive at a pair
   of mutually reachable transport addresses to use for media
   communications in the face of NATs.  It uses the Simple Traversal
   Underneath NAT (STUN, [22]) protocol, applying its binding discovery
   and relay usages.




Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


   When following the ICE procedures, in addition to local addresses,
   user agents need to obtain addresses from relays.  For example, an
   IPv6 user agent would obtain an IPv4 address from a relay.  The relay
   would forward the traffic received on this IPv4 address to the user
   agent using IPv6.  Such user agents MAY use any mechanism to obtain
   addresses in relays, but, following the recommendations in ICE, it is
   RECOMMENDED that user agents support TURN [9] [11] for this purpose.

   It is RECOMMENDED that user agents gather both IPv4 and IPv6
   addresses using the ICE procedures to generate all their offers.
   This way, both IPv4-only and IPv6-only answerers will be able to
   generate an answer that establishes a session.

      Having placed both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the offer reduces
      the session establishment time because both all types of answerers
      find the offer valid.

   User agents that use SDP SHOULD support the ANAT semantics for the
   SDP grouping framework.  ANAT allows user agents to include both IPv4
   and IPv6 addresses in their SDP session descriptions.  The SIP usage
   of the ANAT semantics is discussed in [8].

4.3  Connectivity Checks

   Once the answerer has generated an answer following the ICE
   procedures, both user agents MAY perform the connectivity checks
   specified by ICE.  These checks help prevent some types of flooding
   attacks and allow user agents to discover new addresses that can be
   useful in the presence of NATs.

5.  Contacting Servers: Interaction of RFC3263 and RFC3484

   RFC3263 maps a SIP or SIPS URI to a set of DNS SRV records for the
   various servers that can handle the URI.  The Expected Output, given
   an Application Unique String (the URI) is one or more SRV records,
   sorted by the "priority" field, and further ordered by the "weight"
   field in each priority class.

      The terms "Expected Output" and "Application Unique String", as
      they are to be interpreted in the context of SIP, are defined in
      Section 8 of RFC3263 [7].

   To find a particular IP address to send the request to, the client
   will eventually perform an A or AAAA DNS lookup on a target.  As
   specified in RFC3263, this target will have been obtained through
   NAPTR and SRV lookups, or if NAPTR and SRV lookup did not return any
   records, the target will simply be the domain name of the Application
   Unique String.  In order to translate the target to the corresponding



Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


   set of IP addresses, IPv6-only or dual-stack clients MUST use the
   newer getaddrinfo() name lookup function, instead of gethostbyname()
   [21].  The new function implements the Source and Destination Address
   Selection algorithms specified in RFC3484 [12], which is expected to
   be supported by all IPv6 hosts.

   The advantage of the additional complexity is that this technique
   will output an ordered list of IPv6/IPv4 destination addresses based
   on the relative merits of the corresponding source/destination pairs.
   This will guarantee optimal routing.  However, the Source and
   Destination Selection algorithms of RFC3484 are dependent on broad
   operating system support and uniform implementation of the
   application programming interfaces that implement this behavior.

      Developers should carefully consider the issues described by Roy
      et al. [23] with respect to address resolution delays and address
      selection rules.  For example, implementations of getaddrinfo()
      may return address lists containing IPv6 global addresses at the
      top of the list and IPv4 addresses at the bottom, even when the
      host is only configured with an IPv6 local scope (e.g., link-
      local) and an IPv4 address.  This will, of course, introduce a
      delay in completing the connection.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not contain any actions for the IANA.

7.  Security Considerations

   This document describes how IPv4 SIP user agents can communicate with
   IPv6 user agents (and vice versa).  To do this, it uses additional
   protocols (TURN [9], ICE [10], SDP [2]); the threat model of each
   such protocol is included in its respective document.  The procedures
   introduced in this document do not introduce the possibility of any
   new security threats; however, they may make hosts more amenable to
   existing threats.  Consider, for instance, a UAC that allocates an
   IPv4 and IPv6 addresses locally and inserts these into the SDP.
   Malicious user agents that may intercept the request can mount a
   denial of service attack targeted to the different network interfaces
   of the UAC.

8.  Acknowledgment

   The authors would like to thank Mohamed Boucadair, Cullen Jennings,
   Aki Niemi, Jonathan Rosenberg, and Robert Sparks for discussions on
   the working group list that improved the quality of this document.

   Additionally, Francois Audet, Mary Barnes, Keith Drage, and  Dale



Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


   Worley provided invaluable comments as part of the working group last
   call review process.

9.  References

9.1  Normative References

   [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]   Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
         Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [3]   Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
         Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
         Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [4]   Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
         the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.

   [5]   Camarillo, G., Holler, J., and H. Schulzrinne, "Grouping of
         Media Lines in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
         RFC 3388, December 2002.

   [6]   Camarillo, G. and J. Rosenberg, "The Alternative Network
         Address Types (ANAT) Semantics for the  Session Description
         Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework", RFC 4091, June 2005.

   [7]   Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol
         (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002.

   [8]   Camarillo, G. and J. Rosenberg, "Usage of the Session
         Description Protocol (SDP) Alternative  Network Address Types
         (ANAT) Semantics in the Session Initiation  Protocol (SIP)",
         RFC 4092, June 2005.

   [9]   Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., and C. Huitema, "Traversal Using Relay
         NAT (TURN)", draft-ietf-behave-turn-01 (work in progress),
         February 2006.

   [10]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A
         Methodology for  Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
         Offer/Answer Protocols", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-08 (work in
         progress), March 2006.

   [11]  Camarillo, G. and O. Novo, "Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN)
         Extension for IPv4/IPv6  Transition",
         draft-ietf-behave-turn-ipv6-00 (work in progress),



Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


         February 2006.

   [12]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol
         Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, Feb 2003.

9.2  Informational References

   [13]  Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv6)
         Options for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Servers",
         RFC 3319, July 2003.

   [14]  Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP-
         for-IPv4) Option  for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
         Servers", RFC 3361, August 2002.

   [15]  Rosenberg, J., Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and G. Camarillo,
         "Best Current Practices for Third Party Call Control (3pcc) in
         the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3725.

   [16]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
         "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
         RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [17]  Handley, M., Schulzrinne, H., Schooler, E., and J. Rosenberg,
         "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 2543, March 1999.

   [18]  Peterson, J., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Authenticated
         Identity Body (AIB) Format", RFC 3893, September 2004.

   [19]  Gurbani, V., Boulton, C., and R. Sparks, "Recommendations on
         the use of IPv6 in the Session Initiation  Protocol (SIP)",
         draft-gurbani-sipping-ipv6-sip-03 (work in progress), May 2006.

   [20]  Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated
         Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
         draft-ietf-sip-identity-06 (work in progress), October 2005.

   [21]  Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E. Castro,
         "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition", RFC 4038, March 2005.

   [22]  Rosenberg, J., Huitema, C., Mahy, R., and D. Wing, "Simple
         Traversal Underneath Network Address Translators (NAT)
         (STUN)", draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-04 (work in progress),
         July 2006.

   [23]  Roy, S., Durand, A., and J. Paugh, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery On-
         Link Assumption Considered Harmful",
         draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-04.txt (work in progress),



Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


         January 2006.


Authors' Addresses

   Gonzalo Camarillo
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com


   Karim El Malki
   Athonet

   Email: karim@athonet.com


   Vijay K. Gurbani (editor)
   Lucent Technologies, Inc./Bell Laboratories
   2701 Lucent Lane
   Rm 9F-546
   Lisle, IL  60532
   USA

   Phone: +1 630 224 0216
   Email: vkg@lucent.com

Appendix A.  Sample IPv4/IPv6 DNS File

   A portion of a sample DNS zone file entry is reproduced below that
   has both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.  This entry corresponds to a proxy
   server for the domain "example.com".  The proxy server supports the
   Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
   transport for both IPv4 and IPv6 networks.














Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


       ...
       _sip._tcp  SRV  20 0 5060 sip1.example.com
                  SRV   0 0 5060 sip2.example.com
       _sip._udp  SRV  20 0 5060 sip1.example.com
                  SRV   0 0 5060 sip2.example.com

       sip1 IN A     192.0.2.1
       sip1 IN AAAA  2001:db8::1
       sip2 IN A     192.0.2.2
       sip2 IN AAAA  2001:db8::2
       ...








































Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 Transition in SIP           September 2006


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Camarillo, et al.        Expires March 12, 2007                [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/