RE: draft-boucadair-6man-sip-proxy-01

2012-10-14 Thread mohamed.boucadair
age d'origine- >De : ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] De >la part de RJ Atkinson >Envoyé : vendredi 12 octobre 2012 21:07 >À : ipv6@ietf.org >Objet : Re: draft-boucadair-6man-sip-proxy-01 > ><http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/ms

RE: draft-boucadair-6man-sip-proxy-01

2012-10-14 Thread mohamed.boucadair
and an "over-the-top" protocol, stateless DHCPv6, used to >configure hosts' service and applications. Routers operating as >DCHPv6 relays fit within this model because they're (new) DHCPv6 option >transparent. > >Regards, >Mark. > > > >- Original Mess

Re: draft-boucadair-6man-sip-proxy-01

2012-10-12 Thread Mark ZZZ Smith
--- > From: "mohamed.boucad...@orange.com" > To: Ray Hunter > Cc: "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>; BINET David OLNC/OLN > > Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012 8:00 PM > Subject: RE: draft-boucadair-6man-sip-proxy-01 > > Dear Ray, > > Thank you

Re: draft-boucadair-6man-sip-proxy-01

2012-10-12 Thread RJ Atkinson
I agree with Ray Hunter's analysis of this proposal, as posted on the IPv6 list (available at the URL above). Ran IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.

RE: draft-boucadair-6man-sip-proxy-01

2012-10-12 Thread mohamed.boucadair
Dear Ray, Thank you for the comments. Please see inline. Cheers, Med >-Message d'origine- >De : Ray Hunter [mailto:v6...@globis.net] >Envoyé : vendredi 5 octobre 2012 21:45 >À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >Cc : 6...@ietf.org >Objet : Re: draft-boucadair-6man

Re: draft-boucadair-6man-sip-proxy-01

2012-10-05 Thread Ray Hunter
I have read this draft and do not support it as-is. I do not agree with the conclusion that extending RA with a new option for SIP is necessary nor desirable. IMVHO: 1. There are other mechanisms available. DHCPv6 is not mandatory in the IPv6 node requirements, but neither is SIP. Adding a n