--On Monday, April 08, 2002 09:20:42 AM +0200 Michael Kjorling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Apr 7 2002 15:08 -0400, Aaron Angel wrote:
>
>> Except that ip6.arpa has a completely difference format for
>> entries...
>
> Weren't bitlabels and the A6 and DNAME record types changed to
> experimental status?
Heard so, too.
Also imho the use of bitstring labels in DNAME must be reviewed
because the schema isn't a unique representation, if prefix length
mod 4 isn't zero. Designers forgot a sign which tells from which
direction prefix length is counted (also not mentioned in RFC).
Examples (copied from an older e-mail to ipng in 02/2002):
Printing prefices:
1) "Standard":
3ffe:ffff:0123:4567:89ab:cdef:0011:2233/64
-> \[x3ffeffff01234567/64]
2) Now what about:
3ffe:ffff:0123:4567:89ab:cdef:0011:2233/63
-> \[x3ffeffff01234566/63] ?
or
3ffe:ffff:0123:4567:89ab:cdef:0011:2233/65
-> \[x3ffeffff012345678/65] ?
Is this ok, keeping most significant bits aligned?
Printing suffices:
3) "Standard":
3ffe:ffff:0123:4567:89ab:cdef:0011:2233/64
-> \[x89abcdef00112233/64]
4) Now what about:
3ffe:ffff:0123:4567:89ab:cdef:0011:2233/63
-> \[x189abcdef00112233/65] ?
or
3ffe:ffff:0123:4567:89ab:cdef:0011:2233/65
-> \[x09abcdef00112233/63]
Is this ok, keeping now least significant bits aligned?
If both to "yes", this isn't a unique representation because who
decides when to use which bits.
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPv6 Users Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe users" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
