datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Liaison Statement: LS reply on invalid connection address for IPv4 and IPv6

Submission Date: 2008-05-13
From: 3GPP (Susanna Kooistra)
To: The IETF (chair@ietf.org)
Cc:iesg@ietg.org
Response Contact:
Technical Contact:
Purpose: For action
Deadline: 2008-06-23 Action Taken
Attachments: LS on specification of an invalid connection address for IPv4 and IPv6
Body:
3GPP TSG CT WG4 Meeting #39	C4-081484
Cape Town, South-Africa, 5th – 9th May 2008


Title:	LS reply on invalid connection address for IPv4 and IPv6
Response to:	
Release:	Release 8 
Work Item:	SIP-I_Nc

Source:	TSG CT WG4
To:	IETF 
Cc:	TSG CT

Contact Person:	
Name:	phil hodges
Tel. Number:	+61404069546
E-mail Address:	Philip.hodges@ericsson.com



Attachments:	


1. Overall Description:
3GPP TSG CT WG4 are developing a SIP-I application for the Nc interface
(Intra PLMN control plane between MSC Servers) and have a specific
optional feature for deferring the MGW selection. The solution proposes
to signal an "invalid" or "unspecified" connection address when the MGW
has not be seized and if the succeeding node supports the deferred MGW
selection procedure it seizes a MGW and signals the Identity of the MGW
back via an SDP attribute.
It is currently proposed to use the unspecified connection address
(0.0.0.0) however at CT WG4#39 it was questioned that as IETF is
mandating the use of .INVALID for IPv6, could the same solution be used
for IPv4 ? Are UA's currently required to be able to receive this, and
therefore it does not violate any IETF rules for IPv4 connection
address usage ? Does IETF offer any recommendations on this usage ?

2. Actions:
To IETF group.
ACTION: 	CT4 asks IETF whether the .INVALID address may be used to
indicate an unspecified IPv4 connection address and does IETF offer any
recommendation in this respect ?
3. Date of Next CT4 Meetings:
CT4#39bis	23rd – 27th June 2008	Zagreb, CROATIA