Hi Dave, All Thanks for a lot of comments.
Dave Thaler wrote: >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 agree with your comment. We had missed these. These should be included in the document. >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 > >And explicitly recommend that forms for which dotted decimal is >legal should always be displayed with dotted decimal rather than >hex. I agree here also. These mixed addresses have special meanings. Also to avoid confusion, I think it should not be converted to hex. Regrettably, ISATAP and IPv4-translated addresses will converted to hex in inet_ntop(). Even if we change current code, to deploy new code is not easy. Regards, Masanobu Kawashima >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 > >And explicitly recommend that forms for which dotted decimal is >legal should always be displayed with dotted decimal rather than >hex. > >-Dave > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Brian Haberman >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:41 AM >> To: IPv6 WG Mailing List >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Review requested: draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-02 >> >> 6MAN WG, >> A document (draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-02) has been >> sent to the v6ops list for comment. The ADs and chairs have determined >> that it is more appropriate for the 6MAN WG since we are the home for >> any work updating the base specifications. This draft proposes changes >> to the textual representation of IPv6 addresses in order to avoid >> confusion between different ways of writing the same address. >> >> I would like the WG to review and comment on this document on the >> list. >> >> Regards, >> Brian >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> [email protected] >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >[email protected] >Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
