diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-01.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-06.txt similarity index 64% rename from doc/draft/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-01.txt rename to doc/draft/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-06.txt index f15b069b5b..62c5ad002f 100644 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-01.txt +++ b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-06.txt @@ -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]