Brian, >I would also encourage Arun and anyone from the ATM >Forum who is interested in IPv6 addresses in NSAP to submit a draft >on the issue. If there is interest from the WG, I would support >that work being done here.
Ok, I will initiate work on preapring a draft on the issue and submiting it, soon. Based on the response/interest/comments to this draft, suitable way forward as seen fit could then be taken-up. Anybody from ATM Forum interested in the issue is welcome to join in. Regards, Arun. -----Original Message----- From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 7:54 PM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Pandey, Arun; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IPv6 addresses inside an NSAPA issues Brian, As one co-chair, I would support the effort to move RFC 1888 to Historic. I would also encourage Arun and anyone from the ATM Forum who is interested in IPv6 addresses in NSAP to submit a draft on the issue. If there is interest from the WG, I would support that work being done here. Regards, Brian Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Arun, > > 1888 is an Experimental RFC that contains health warnings that it > won't work, and as far as I know nobody has ever attempted to > implement it. There also is some interest in the ATM Forum in the > mapping of IP addresses inside NSAP addresses, but that is another > story. > > My opinion as the main author of 1888 is that it is well overdue > to be downgraded to Historic, but I was hoping to see a draft from > the ATM people that updates the small part of it that they need, which > is also the part you are interested in. > > Without really thinking about it, and with my OSI knowledge having > ten years' rust on it, it seems to me that port numbers belong in > the TSAP address, not the NSAP address. But since I have no idea > why anyone would care, I'd prefer that we simply downgrade the > RFC and forget about. Could I ask whether the WG would support > that? If so the chairs could request the IESG to do it. > > Then people interested in the section 'IPv6 addresses inside an NSAPA' > (i.e. you and the ATM Forum) could deal with this as you see fit. > > Regards > Brian > > > Pandey, Arun wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> RFC 1888 section 'IPv6 addresses inside an NSAPA' does not provide a >> way to put the tcp port number inside the NSAP. Whereas for IPv4 >> addresses `RFC 1277 section 4.5 - TCP/IP Network Specific Format` >> specified a format that allowed the port number to be also specified. >> For certain applications like the 'OSI Directory services' working in >> a internet environment it might be required to store and pass the tcp >> port number along with the IPv6 address. >> Also RFC 1278 that specified a string representation for the >> presentation address, doesn't seem to have been updated for specifying >> a string representation for the presentation address to carry IPv6 >> addresses. The various proposed representations do make space for >> specifying the port number along with the IPv6 address in the >> Presentation Address. >> >> This seems to create a situation that if an application is to encode >> the NSAP, specified in the string representation of the presentation >> address, as per RFC 1888, it will not be able to encode the port >> number [if present] along with the IPv6 address, in the NSAPA. This >> will force the application to store the port number [if present] in an >> alternate location. >> >> If the application now wants to transfer this encoded Presentation >> Address to another application: >> >> 1) Both the applications would need to agree on an alternate field >> where to specify the port number, to be able to reconstruct the >> original presentation address. >> or >> 2) The applications will have to agree on transferring the string >> encoding of the presentation address to each other. But even for >> that the string representation of the presentation address for >> carrying the IPv6 address needs to be agreed upon first. >> or >> 3) A encoding format for IPv6 addresses inside an NSAPA would need to >> be specified that would allow the carriage of the port number along >> with the IPv6 address inside an NSAPA. >> >> Each of the above alternatives has its own set of implications. What >> do others think? Any opinions or suggestions will be highly appreciated. >> >> Best Regards >> Arun Pandey >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
