Subject: RE: Clarification in RFC-3015 for domainAddress related to IPV6address

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:07:00 +0530

Paul,
     I looked into the RFC for IPV6-------------------- RFC-2373.

   2. Due to some methods of allocating certain styles of IPv6
      addresses, it will be common for addresses to contain long strings
      of zero bits.  In order to make writing addresses containing zero
      bits easier a special syntax is available to compress the zeros.
      The use of "::" indicates multiple groups of 16-bits of zeros.
      The "::" can only appear once in an address.  The "::" can also be
      used to compress the leading and/or trailing zeros in an address.

      For example the following addresses:

         1080:0:0:0:8:800:200C:417A  a unicast address
         FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:101        a multicast address
         0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1             the loopback address
         0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0             the unspecified addresses

      may be represented as:

         1080::8:800:200C:417A       a unicast address
         FF01::101                   a multicast address
         ::1                         the loopback address
         ::                          the unspecified addresses

   3. An alternative form that is sometimes more convenient when dealing
      with a mixed environment of IPv4 and IPv6 nodes is
      x:x:x:x:x:x:d.d.d.d, where the 'x's are the hexadecimal values of
      the six high-order 16-bit pieces of the address, and the 'd's are
      the decimal values of the four low-order 8-bit pieces of the
      address (standard IPv4 representation).  Examples:

         0:0:0:0:0:0:13.1.68.3

         0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38

      or in compressed form:

         ::13.1.68.3

         ::FFFF:129.144.52.38

So I guess the IPV6address that I suggested are all allowed.

tx
amit

"Paul Long" <[email-masked]> on 05/23/2001 10:02:53 PM

To:   [email-masked]
cc:    (bcc: Amit Kalra/HSS)

Subject:  RE: Clarification in RFC-3015 for domainAddress related to IPV6address

Amit,

Yes, as far as I understand, these are all syntactically correct. I'm not
familiar enough with IPv6 to know whether those particular values make
sense, but they are at least constructed correctly.

Paul Long
ipDialog, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 3:57 AM
To: Paul Long
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Clarification in RFC-3015 for domainAddress related to
IPV6address

Hi Paul,
     Thanks for the reply, can you provide some more clarification on:

The expansion of an IPV6address can be one of the following then.

      FFFF::
      FFFF::FFFF
      ::
      ::FFFF
      FFFF
      FFFF:::IPV4address
      FFFF::FFFF:IPV4address
      :::IPV4address
      ::FFFF:IPV4address
      FFFF:IPV4address

Going by the given expansion of hexpart and IPV6address rules in the grammar
in
RFC 3015.
Are all the above cases valid for an IPV6address?

regards/
Amit