From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jeroen van Bemmel wrote: > Vijay, > It's not only IPv6: what about 127.0.0.1 versus 127.000.000.1?
Jeroen: Pedantically speaking, you are probably right. But in practice we do not generally see leading zeros in an IPv4 octet. Even worse, in some places, including some early RFCs, the leading zero is used to indicate that the octet is represented in octal! But I think Jeroen's point is actually well-taken, when comparing representations of IP addresses (not DNS names), the comparison is implicitly of the address represented, not the textual representation. And this applies in IPv4 as well as IPv6. In regard to loop detection, there are two approaches: (1) Whatever attempts to detect loops can canonicalize the addresses before comparing them or whatever. (2) Since there are a limited number of likely representations of any address, having different entities use different representations will only delay loop detection, not prevent it. And loops will be detected even if address comparisons have occasional false negatives. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
