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.)

> 
> 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.

> 
> 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.

    Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to