-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I guess it comes down to either (2) or (3), but I'm slightly uncomfortable with the word "require" in (3).
What I personally like, is the text representation is <SOMETHING>, take into account new WKPs. Also suggest that tools might help if they had the option to recognize even dynamically assigned IPv4/IPv6 prefixes. So my bid would be (2), but add a little more on how tools might become more useful in some cases. Regards, Seiichi Dan Wing wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder >> [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:08 PM >> To: Dan Wing >> Cc: 'Jari Arkko'; >> [email protected]; >> 'IETF IPv6 Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation >> >> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:50:51PM +0100, Dan Wing wrote: >> >>> Your email from January 28: >>> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg11215.htm >> l, summarized: >>> 1) Mandate that the text representation is <SOMETHING> >>> and never changes after this. >>> >>> 2) Mandate that the text representation is <SOMETHING> >>> but take into account new WKPs. >>> >>> 3) Mandate that the text representation is <SOMETHING> >>> but require that external mechanisms help recognize >>> even dynamically assigned IPv4/IPv6 prefixes. >>> >>> 4) As above, but specify a mandatory external mechanism. >> My main interest is textual comparability of addresses coming from >> potentially many different sources. If I can compare addresses safely >> only if I know some context information communicated out of band or I >> have to configure all sources to produce the same, I feel somewhat >> uneasy. My preference thus is 1), I might be OK with 2) if the >> frequency of the introduction of new WKPs is very small. > > BEHAVE is introducing both (1) a WKP which embeds the IPv4 address > in the last 32 bits and (2) allowing networks to use their own 96-bit > prefix and embed the IPv4 address in the last 32 bits. > > Your proposal would prohibit (2) from displaying the IPv4 address in > dotted decimal, because of a fear the parsed IPv6 address might be > seen or used on another network. > > Personally, I find this useful. If I'm on my home network and somebody > sends me a trace with their IPv6 prefix and some dotted-decimal displayed > in the last 32 bits, I know immediately that their tool (running on their > network) believed -- through whatever means -- that the last 32 bits > was an IPv4 address. > > -d > > >> /js >> >> -- >> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany >> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAktFKisACgkQcrhTYfxyMkJsmgCeOh4xh5OA+Yh3QVRvvnYX75JG YZwAn2O6/fy/c8O2Hoxe+eOaoWqthJpj =2XvU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
