mir/bind
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9 synced 2025-08-31 14:35:26 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

new draft

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Mark Andrews
2010-02-19 10:12:43 +00:00
parent 4129583cb6
commit 62ab12711f
1 changed files with 272 additions and 272 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

544
doc/draft/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-01.txt → doc/draft/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-06.txt
View File

@@ -3,13 +3,28 @@
IPv6 Maintenance Working Group S. Kawamura
Internet-Draft NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
Intended status: Informational M. Kawashima
Expires: April 21, 2010 NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
October 18, 2009
Updates: 4291 (if approved) M. Kawashima
Intended status: Standards Track NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
Expires: August 23, 2010 February 19, 2010
A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-01
draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-06
Abstract
As IPv6 network grows, there will be more engineers and also non-
engineers who will have the need to use an IPv6 address in text.
While the IPv6 address architecture RFC 4291 section 2.2 depicts a
flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address, this
flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system
engineers, and users. This document will describe the problems that
a flexible text representation has been causing. This document also
recommends a canonical representation format that best avoids
confusion. It is expected that the canonical format is followed by
humans and systems when representing IPv6 addresses as text, but all
implementations must accept and be able to handle any legitimate
RFC4291 format.
Status of this Memo
@@ -32,41 +47,70 @@ Status of this Memo
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2010.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2010.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
As IPv6 network grows, there will be more engineers and also non-
engineers who will have the need to use an IPv6 address in text.
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 1]
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
While the IPv6 address architecture RFC 4291 section 2.2 depicts a
flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address, this
flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system
engineers, and users. This document will describe the problems that
a flexible text representation has been causing. This document also
recommends a canonical representation format that best avoids
confusion. It is expected that the canonical format is followed by
humans and systems when representing IPv6 addresses as text, but all
implementations must accept and be able to handle any legitimate
RFC4291 format.
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
Table of Contents
@@ -86,87 +130,43 @@ Table of Contents
3.2. Parsing and Modifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3. Auditing: Case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.3. Auditing: Case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.5. Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.6. Unexpected Modifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Operating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. Customer Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.2. Customer Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.3. Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Other Minor Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.1. Changing Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.2. Preference in Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.3. Legibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.3. Legibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. "::" Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Lower Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
5. Text Representation of Special Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Lower Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Text Representation of Special Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers . . . . . 11
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Prefix Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. For Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Prefix Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 3]
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
1. Introduction
@@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
2001:DB8:0:0:1::1
All the above point to the same IPv6 address. This flexibility has
All the above represent the same IPv6 address. This flexibility has
caused many problems for operators, systems engineers, and customers.
The problems will be noted in Section 3. Also, a canonical
representation format to avoid problems will be introduced in
@@ -220,9 +220,9 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 4]
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:eeee:0001
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:0:1
In case where there are more than one zero fields, there is a choice
In case where there is more than one zero fields, there is a choice
of how many fields can be shortened. Examples follow.
2001:db8:0:0:0::1
@@ -276,9 +276,9 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 5]
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:eeee:aaaa
@@ -332,9 +332,9 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 6]
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
was a need to register the same address on different systems, and
@@ -345,14 +345,14 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
3.1.4. Searching for an Address in a Network Diagram
Network diagrams and blue-prints contain IP addresses as allocated to
system devices. In times of trouble shooting, there may be a need to
search through a diagram to find the point of failure (for example,
if a traceroute stopped at 2001:db8::1, one would search the diagram
for that address). This is a technique quite often in use in
enterprise networks and managed services. Again, the different
flavors of text representation will result in a time-consuming
search, leading to longer MTTR in times of trouble.
Network diagrams and blue-prints often show what IP addresses are
assigned to a system devices. In times of trouble shooting, there
may be a need to search through a diagram to find the point of
failure (for example, if a traceroute stopped at 2001:db8::1, one
would search the diagram for that address). This is a technique
quite often in use in enterprise networks and managed services.
Again, the different flavors of text representation will result in a
time-consuming search, leading to longer MTTR in times of trouble.
3.2. Parsing and Modifying
@@ -361,15 +361,11 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
With all the possible text representation ways, each application must
include a module, object, link, etc. to a function that will parse
IPv6 addresses in a manner that no matter how it is represented, they
will mean the same address. This is not too much a problem if the
output is to be just 'read' or 'managed' by a network engineer.
However, many system engineers who integrate complex computer systems
to corporate customers will have difficulties finding that their
favorite tool will not have this function, or will encounter
difficulties such as having to rewrite their macro's or scripts for
their customers. It must be noted that each additional line of a
program will result in increased development fees that will be
charged to the customers.
will mean the same address. Many system engineers who integrate
complex computer systems to corporate customers will have
difficulties finding that their favorite tool will not have this
function, or will encounter difficulties such as having to rewrite
their macro's or scripts for their customers.
3.2.2. Logging
@@ -377,22 +373,11 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
address in full (such as 2001:0db8:0000:0000:1111:2222:3333:4444),
the output would be highly unreadable compared to the IPv4 output.
The address would have to be parsed and reformed to make it useful
for human reading. This will result in additional code on the
applications which will result in extra fees charged to the
customers. Sometimes, logging for critical systems is done by
mirroring the same traffic to two different systems. Care must be
for human reading. Sometimes, logging for critical systems is done
by mirroring the same traffic to two different systems. Care must be
taken that no matter what the log output is, the logs should be
parsed so they will mean the same.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
3.2.3. Auditing: Case 1
When a router or any other network appliance machine configuration is
@@ -400,37 +385,45 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
information of a node. Sometimes, auditing will be done by just
comparing the changes made each day. In this case, if configuration
was done such that 2001:db8::1 was changed to 2001:0db8:0000:0000:
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
0000:0000:0000:0001 just because the new engineer on the block felt
it was better, a simple diff will tell you that a different address
was configured. If this was done on a wide scale network, people
will be focusing on 'why the extra zeros were put in' instead of
doing any real auditing. Lots of tools are just plain 'diff's that
do not take into account address representation rules.
it was better, a simple diff will show that a different address was
configured. If this was done on a wide scale network, people will be
focusing on 'why the extra zeros were put in' instead of doing any
real auditing. Lots of tools are just plain 'diff's that do not take
into account address representation rules.
3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2
Node configurations will be matched against an information system
that manages IP addresses. If output notation is different, there
will need to be a script that is implemented to cover for this. An
SNMP GET of an interface address and text representation in a humanly
written text file is highly unlikely to match on first try.
will need to be a script that is implemented to cover for this. The
result of an SNMP GET operation, converted to text and compared to a
textual address written by a human is highly unlikely to match on
first try.
3.2.5. Verification
Some protocols require certain data fields to be verified. One
example of this is X.509 certificates. If an IPv6 address was
embedded in one of the fields in a certificate, and the verification
was done by just a simple textual comparison, the certificate may be
maistakenly shown as being invalid due to a difference in text
representation methods.
example of this is X.509 certificates. If an IPv6 address field in a
certificate was incorrectly verified by converting it to text and
making a simple textual comparison to some other address, the
certificate may be mistakenly shown as being invalid due to a
difference in text representation methods.
3.2.6. Unexpected Modifying
Sometimes, a system will take an address and modify it as a
convenience. For example, a system may take an input of
2001:0db8:0::1 and make the output 2001:db8::1 (which is seen in some
RIR databases). If the zeros were input for a reason, the outcome
may be somewhat unexpected.
2001:0db8:0::1 and make the output 2001:db8::1. If the zeros were
input for a reason, the outcome may be somewhat unexpected.
3.3. Operating
@@ -438,30 +431,28 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
When an operator sets an IPv6 address of a system as 2001:db8:0:0:1:
0:0:1, the system may take the address and show the configuration
result as 2001:DB8::1:0:0:1. A distinguished engineer will know that
the right address is set, but an operator, or a customer that is
communicating with the operator to solve a problem, is usually not as
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
distinguished as we would like. Again, the extra load in checking
that the IP address is the same as was intended, will result in fees
that will be charged to the customers.
result as 2001:DB8::1:0:0:1. Someone familiar with IPv6 address
representation will know that the right address is set, but not
everyone may understand this.
3.3.2. Customer Calls
When a customer calls to inquire about a suspected outage, IPv6
address representation should be handled with care. Not all
customers are engineers nor have the same skill in IPv6 technology.
The NOC will have to take extra steps to humanly parse the address to
avoid having to explain to the customers that 2001:db8:0:1::1 is the
same as 2001:db8::1:0:0:0:1. This is one thing that will never
happen in IPv4 because IPv4 address cannot be abbreviated.
The network operations center will have to take extra steps to
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
humanly parse the address to avoid having to explain to the customers
that 2001:db8:0:1::1 is the same as 2001:db8::1:0:0:0:1. This is one
thing that will never happen in IPv4 because IPv4 address cannot be
abbreviated.
3.3.3. Abuse
@@ -485,26 +476,14 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
the same code may not work as expected due to the difference in IPv6
address text representation. Usually, a change in a platform (e.g.
Unix to Windows, Cisco to Juniper) will result in a major change of
code, but flexibility in address representation will increase the
work load which will again, result in fees that will be charged to
the customers, and also longer down time of systems.
code anyway, but flexibility in address representation will increase
the work load.
3.4.2. Preference in Documentation
A document that is edited by more than one author, may become harder
to read.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
3.4.3. Legibility
Capital case D and 0 can be quite often misread. Capital B and 8 can
@@ -517,70 +496,89 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
addresses is presented in this section. The recommendation in this
document is one that, complies fully with [RFC4291], is implemented
by various operating systems, and is human friendly. The
recommendation in this document SHOULD be followed by humans and
systems when generating an address to represent as text, but all
implementations MUST accept any legitimate [RFC4291] format.
recommendation in this section SHOULD be followed by systems when
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
generating an address to represent as text, but all implementations
MUST accept and be able to handle any legitimate [RFC4291] format.
It is advised that humans also follow these recommendations when
spelling an address.
4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field
Leading zeros should be chopped for human legibility and easier
searching. Also, a single 16 bit 0000 field should be represented as
just 0. Place holder zeros are often cause of misreading.
Leading zeros MUST be suppressed. For example 2001:0db8::0001 is not
acceptable and must be represented as 2001:db8::1. A single 16 bit
0000 field MUST be represented as 0.
4.2. "::" Usage
4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible
The use of "::" should be used to its maximum capability (i.e. 2001:
db8::0:1 is not considered as clean representation).
The use of symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability. For
example, 2001:db8::0:1 is not acceptable, because the symbol "::"
could have been used to produce a shorter representation 2001:db8::1.
4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field
"::" should not be used to shorten just one 16 bit 0 field for it
would tend to mislead that there are more than one 16 bit field that
is shortened.
The symbol "::" MUST NOT be used to shorten just one 16 bit 0 field.
For example, the representation 2001:db8:0:1:1:1:1:1 is correct, but
2001:db8::1:1:1:1:1 is not correct.
4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::"
When there is an alternative choice in the placement of a "::", the
longest run of consecutive 16 bit 0 fields should be shortened (i.e.
latter is shortened in 2001:0:0:1:0:0:0:1). When the length of the
consecutive 16 bit 0 fields are equal (i.e. 2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1),
the former is shortened. This is consistent with many current
implementations. One idea to avoid any confusion, is for the
operator to not use 16 bit field 0 in the first 64 bits. By nature
IPv6 addresses are usually assigned or allocated to end-users as
longer than 32 bits (typically 48 bits or longer).
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
longest run of consecutive 16 bit 0 fields MUST be shortened (i.e.
the sequence with three consecutive zero fields is shortened in 2001:
0:0:1:0:0:0:1). When the length of the consecutive 16 bit 0 fields
are equal (i.e. 2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1), the first sequence of zero
bits MUST be shortened. For example 2001:db8::1:0:0:1 is correct
representation.
4.3. Lower Case
Recent implementations tend to represent IPv6 address as lower case.
It is better to use lower case to avoid problems such as described in
section 3.3.3 and 3.4.3.
The characters "a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f" in an IPv6 address MUST
be represented in lower case.
5. Text Representation of Special Addresses
Addresses such as IPv4-Mapped IPv6 addresses, ISATAP [RFC5214], and
IPv4-translated addresses [RFC2765] have IPv4 addresses embedded in
the low-order 32 bits of the address. These addresses have special
representation that may mix hexadecimal and decimal notations. In
cases where there is a choice of whether to express the address as
fully hexadecimal or hexadecimal and decimal mixed, and if the
address type can be distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded
in the lower 32 bits solely from the 128bits of the address field
itself, mixed notation is the better choice. However, there may be
situations where hexadecimal representation is chosen to meet certain
needs. Addressing those needs is out of the scope of this document.
IPv4-translatable addresses [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] have
IPv4 addresses embedded in the low-order 32 bits of the address.
These addresses have special representation that may mix hexadecimal
and dot decimal notations. The decimal notation may be used only for
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
the last 32 bits of the address. For these addresses, mixed notation
is RECOMMENDED if the following condition is met: The address can be
distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits
solely from the address field through the use of a well known prefix.
Such prefixes are defined in [RFC4291] and [RFC2765] at the time of
writing. If it is known by some external method that a given prefix
is used to embed IPv4, it MAY be represented as mixed notation.
Tools that provide options to specify prefixes that are (or are not)
to be represented as mixed notation may be useful.
There is a trade-off here where a recommendation to achieve exact
match in a search (no dot decimals whatsoever) and recommendation to
help the readability of an addresses (dot decimal whenever possible)
does not result in the same solution. The above recommendation is
aimed at fixing the representation as much as possible while leaving
the opportunity for future well known prefixes to be represented in a
human friendly manner as tools adjust to newly assigned prefixes.
The text representation method noted in Section 4 should be applied
for the leading hexadecimal part (i.e. ::ffff:192.0.2.1 instead of
0:0:0:0:0:ffff:192.0.2.1).
@@ -589,8 +587,8 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers
When IPv6 addresses and port numbers are represented in text combined
together, there seems to be many different ways to do so. Examples
are shown below.
together, there are many different ways to do so. Examples are shown
below.
o [2001:db8::1]:80
@@ -606,45 +604,35 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
The situation is not much different in IPv4, but the most ambiguous
case with IPv6 is the second bullet. This is due to the "::"usage in
IPv6 addresses. This style is not recommended for its ambiguity.
The [] style as expressed in [RFC3986] is recommended. Other styles
are acceptable when cross-platform portability does not become an
IPv6 addresses. This style is NOT RECOMMENDED for its ambiguity.
The [] style as expressed in [RFC3986] SHOULD be employed, and is the
default unless otherwise specified. Other styles are acceptable when
there is exactly one style for the given context and cross-platform
portability does not become an issue. For URIs, [RFC3986] MUST be
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 11]
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
issue.
followed.
7. Conclusion
7. Prefix Representation
The recommended format of text representing an IPv6 address is
summarized as follows.
(1) omit leading zeros in a 16 bit field
(2) when using "::", shorten consecutive zero fields to their
maximum extent (leave no zero fields behind).
(3) "::" used where shortens address the most
(4) "::" used in the former part in case of a tie breaker
(5) do not shorten one 16 bit 0 field, but always shorten when
there are two or more consecutive 16 bit 0 fields
(6) use lower case
Hints for developers are written in the Appendix section.
Problems with prefixes are just the same as problems encountered with
addresses. Text representation method of IPv6 prefixes should be no
different from that of IPv6 addresses.
8. Security Considerations
None.
This document notes on some examples where IPv6 addresses are
compared in text format. The example on Section 3.2.5 is one that
may cause a security risk if used for access control. The common
practice of comparing X.509 data is done in binary format.
9. IANA Considerations
@@ -659,18 +647,10 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
starting this document. We also would like to thank Brian Carpenter,
Akira Kato, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Antonio Querubin, Dave Thaler,
Brian Haley, Suresh Krishnan, Jerry Huang, Roman Donchenko, Heikki
Vatiainen for their input. Also a very special thanks to Ron Bonica,
Fred Baker, Brian Haberman, Robert Hinden, Jari Arkko, and Kurt
Lindqvist for their support in bringing this document to the light of
IETF working groups.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
Vatiainen ,Dan Wing for their input. Also a very special thanks to
Ron Bonica, Fred Baker, Brian Haberman, Robert Hinden, Jari Arkko,
and Kurt Lindqvist for their support in bringing this document to the
light of IETF working groups.
11. References
@@ -680,13 +660,26 @@ Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2765] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
(SIIT)", RFC 2765, February 2000.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
11.2. Informative References
[RFC2765] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
(SIIT)", RFC 2765, February 2000.
[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]
Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",
draft-ietf-behave-address-format-04 (work in progress),
January 2010.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
@@ -711,24 +704,6 @@ Appendix A. For Developers
be called directly. See [RFC4038] for details.
Appendix B. Prefix Issues
Problems with prefixes are just the same as problems encountered with
addresses. Text representation method of IPv6 prefixes should be no
different from that of IPv6 addresses.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation October 2009
Authors' Addresses
Seiichi Kawamura
@@ -741,6 +716,19 @@ Authors' Addresses
Email: kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
Masanobu Kawashima
NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
800, Shimomata
@@ -780,6 +768,18 @@ Authors' Addresses
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires April 21, 2010 [Page 14]
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 14]