> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:45 PM > To: Dave Thaler > Cc: 6man > Subject: Re: Review requested: draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation- > 02 > > On 2009-05-15 05:40, Dave Thaler wrote: > > I read and I agree with the document except for Appendix A. > > > > For one, I disagree that v4 mapped addresses are not recommended. > > They're commonly used for sockets that support both IPv4 and IPv6. > > > > Secondly, ISATAP (RFC5214) and IPv4-translated (RFC2765) addresses > > are not mentioned and they also use the decimal form in the low 32 > bits. > > > > I would recommend moving up into the body of the doc a discussion > > of the ambiguity between, for example > > ::ffff:127.0.0.1 > > ::ffff:7f00:1 > > Yes. There is a technical ambiguity in RFC4379 caused by this. > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1418 > > (You can argue that the suggested fix is sloppy too, but at least it > isn't ambiguous. If we agree here, I can ask the RFC Editor to update > the fix.)
I agree the suggested fix isn't ambiguous and hence fixes the problem. However it doesn't follow the :: recommendation or the lower-case recommendation. I'd probably recommend using ::ffff:127.0.0.0/104 in the errata (::ffff:7f00/104 would of course be ambiguous/incorrect). > > And explicitly recommend that forms for which dotted decimal is > > legal should always be displayed with dotted decimal rather than > > hex. > > On 2009-05-15 06:58, Dave Thaler wrote: > > > I'll note that the netstat output below is arguably non-standard > since it includes > > port numbers without encosing the address in []. > > (The arguable part is whether [] is limited to URLs or applies in > general) > > As far as I know it's defined for URIs in RFC3986 and SIP in RFC3261. Yep. > > Windows would display them as [::]:22 etc. > > > > Perhaps this draft should be extended to cover text representation > > of IPv6 addresses + ports, and discuss this issue? > > The combination of RFC3261 and draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix > is supposed to combine the RFC4291 syntax, the RFC3986 square > brackets, and :port, such that [::]:22 would indeed be the result, > whereas 127.0.0.1:22 would be the result for IPv4. > > http://[2001:4860:b003::68]:80 works fine with Firefox and IE. > > I agree that it would be reasonable to recommend this as best practice. Yep, the problem with the notation quoted in Brian Haley's email is that "2001:4860:b003::68:80" when viewed without knowing the context is ambiguous as to whether it's an IPv6 address, or an IPv6 address + port 80. -Dave > Brian > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
