Subject: Re: TDM/SONET & RTP

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 10:39:46 +0100

> assuming that TDM PWs will not use either padding (P=0) or header 
> extension (X=0), then the first nibble will be 1000. This does not 
> conflict with either IPv4 or IPv6. Even if the RTP version incremented, or 
> the padding/extensions were used, it could not conflict with IP - at least 
> not until we are on IPv8 or higher, which judging by the amount of time 
> its taken to establish IPv6 will be a long way ahead.
> Is there a reason why that first nibble must be 0000, rather than 1000 (or 
> any other value that is not 0100 or 0110)?
> 

IPv8 exists, although I doubt very widely.

Stewart

Stewart

Decimal   Keyword    Version                            References
-------   -------    -------                            ----------
     0                Reserved                                [JBP]
   1-3                Unassigned                              [JBP]
     4       IP       Internet Protocol                [RFC791,JBP]
     5       ST       ST Datagram Mode                [RFC1190,JWF]
     6       IPv6     Internet Protocol version 6         [RFC1752]
     7       TP/IX    TP/IX: The Next Internet                [RXU]
     8       PIP      The P Internet Protocol                 [PXF]
     9       TUBA     TUBA                                    [RXC]
10-14                Unassigned                              [JBP]
    15                Reserved                                [JBP]

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 07:22:28 -0400

Stewart,

IPv8 was only a proposal, I highly doubt that Paul Francis (or anyone else 
for that matter) implemented it.  And I'm sure you knew that the P in "P 
Internet Protocol" stood for "Paul"? :-)

Getting back on the topic of this thread, I agree with Ron, David, and 
Sasha, option 2 with the current CW is the way to go.  While I also agree 
with Tim about using option 2, I disagree with him about using the generic 
CW - as Ron said, different requirements lead to a different CW.

Thanks,
Andy

---------

At 5/19/2003 10:39 AM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote:

>>conflict with either IPv4 or IPv6. Even if the RTP version incremented, 
>>or the padding/extensions were used, it could not conflict with IP - at 
>>least not until we are on IPv8 or higher, which judging by the amount of 
>>time its taken to establish IPv6 will be a long way ahead.
>>Is there a reason why that first nibble must be 0000, rather than 1000 
>>(or any other value that is not 0100 or 0110)?
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:48:53 +0100

Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Stewart,
> 
> IPv8 was only a proposal, I highly doubt that Paul Francis (or anyone 
> else for that matter) implemented it.  And I'm sure you knew that the P 
> in "P Internet Protocol" stood for "Paul"? :-)
> 

If we need the value 8 then we can't just kidknap it, we have to go through
the formality of getting it reserved. If we don't then there is a danger
of some other application reclaiming it and using it.

Stewart

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:57:21 -0400

Stewart,

Absolutely.  My point was that if we make the request, I don't anticipate 
there being much opposition.

Andy

-------