In message <[email protected]>, Brian E Carpenter writes:
> 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 i
> ncludes
> > 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
[] is a kludge to get around protocols that had ":" already
embedded as a token seperator.
ISC looked at this over 10 years ago when we were developing
BIND 9 and went with <address>#<port> where address can
have a scope identifier %scope.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
