Draft:  draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-03.txt
Reviewer: Audet, Francois 
Review Date: Thursday 7/6/2006 4:17 PM CST
Review Deadline: 20 July 2006
Status: WGLC 

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. 

I'm wondering if we don't have a backward compatibility problem with the approach suggested in there for Record-Route.

What will a hop that doesn't understand IPv6 addresses do with a Record-Route entry that includes an IPv6 address? Won't it have a problem with it?

Instead of having 2 separate Record-Route entries for the same interface (one IPv4 and one IPv6), wouldn't it make more sense to have only 1 entry which includes alternative addresses? I am thinking something similar to what we do for media with ANAT. Of course it would have to be backward compatible so that if a hop doesn't understand the new parameter (the IPv6 address), it would use the IPv4 address.

Or am I missing something?