To resolve this issue, I propose the following text for section 2.2
(changed line indicated by "|" ):
2. Due to some methods of allocating certain styles of IPv6
addresses, it will be common for addresses to contain long strings
of zero bits. In order to make writing addresses containing zero
bits easier a special syntax is available to compress the zeros.
The use of "::" indicates one or more groups of 16 bits of zeros. |
The "::" can only appear once in an address. The "::" can also be
used to compress the leading and/or trailing zeros in an address.
Unless there is an objection, I will submit a new draft tomorrow with this
change (as well as the reference and obsoletes RFC2373 changes).
Bob
At 09:36 AM 9/12/2002, Thomas Narten wrote:
>Good news. The IESG discussion of this document raised no major
>issues. One point that was discussed, however, was related to whether
>:: means "1 or more" occurances of zero vs. "2 or more", when used in
>an IPv6 literal address. The document currently says:
>
> > 2. Due to some methods of allocating certain styles of IPv6
> > addresses, it will be common for addresses to contain long strings
> > of zero bits. In order to make writing addresses containing zero
> > bits easier a special syntax is available to compress the zeros.
> > The use of "::" indicates multiple groups of 16 bits of zeros.
> > The "::" can only appear once in an address. The "::" can also be
> > used to compress the leading and/or trailing zeros in an address.
>
>It turns out that an unscientific survey (one AD who got bitten once
>and recalled not understanding what was wrong with the address being
>typed in and another that then checked their implementation) at least
>two implementation happen to implement this differently. I.e., on one
>parser an address with :: denoting one occurance of zeros was
>accepted, on the other it was rejected.
>
>It would be good for the WG to clarify what meaning should be
>implemented, and then clarify the document. Once that is done, I
>expect the IESG to approve the document.
>
>Some other nits to fold in:
>
> > Minor nit. The first reference to EUI-64 should contain a reference.
>
> > this document does not say anywhere that it obsoletes
> > RFC 2373 - nor does the protocol action
>
>Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
