Subject: RE: [AVT] RTP: IPv6 examples for RTCP SDES CNAME

From: "Peter Barany" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:23:40 -0600

Colin,

Regarding ::10.0.0.1, I believe this is a valid representation of an IPv4
compatible address. However, let me take another stab at amending the text
below to account for this an additional rules (e.g.., there are 3 forms for
representing IPv6 addresses as text strings). Another way around this would
be to refer to the appropriate IETF IPv6 WG document in order to account for
all of the variations/rules. What do you think? NOTE: RFC 2373 (which is a
Proposed Standard) has been advanced to Draft Standard
(draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt), approved for publication on Oct.
29, 2002 (RFC #?). 

Regards,

Pete

New text below (this should fix/account for everything):

>>   For example, the standard ASCII
>>   representation of an IP Version 4 address is "dotted decimal", also
>>   known as dotted quad, and for IP Version 6, the preferred method for
>>   representing addresses textually is as eight groups of four hexadecimal
>>   digits separated by colons, where (1) it is not necessary to write the
>>   leading zeros in an individual field; (2) a contiguous sequence of
16-bit
>>   blocks set to "0" in the colon hexadecimal format can be compressed to
"::"
>>   ("::" can only appear once in an address); (3) in a mixed environment
of
>>   IPv4 and IPv6 nodes, an alternative method for textually representing
IP Version 6
>>   addresses is as six groups of four hexadecimal digits separated by
colons
>>   for the six high-order 16-bit pieces of the address and "dotted
decimal"
>>   for the four low-order 8-bit pieces of the address (standard IPv4
representation).

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:15 AM
To: Barany, Peter [RICH1:2H16:EXCH]
Cc: Stephen Casner; AVT WG
Subject: Re: [AVT] RTP: IPv6 examples for RTCP SDES CNAME 

Pete,

--> "Peter Barany" writes:
>Agreed. Perhaps the clarification below will address your concern:
>
>>   For example, the standard ASCII
>>   representation of an IP Version 4 address is "dotted decimal", also
>>   known as dotted quad, and for IP Version 6, addresses are textually
>>   represented as eight groups of four hexadecimal digits separated by
>>   colons, where a contiguous sequence of 16-bit blocks set to "0" in the
>>   colon hexadecimal format can be compressed to "::" (this zero
compression
>>   can only be used to compress a single contiguous sequence of 16-bit
blocks
>>   within an IP Version 6 address).

Definitely better. Is the ::10.0.0.1 form of IPv6 address still legal
though?

Colin

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 14:08:54 -0500

Seems reasonable.
Colin

>Definitely better. Is the ::10.0.0.1 form of IPv6 address still legal
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:34:39 -0800 (PST)

> (draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt), approved for publication on Oct.

Peter,

Thanks for the expanded text, but I think we don't want to go into
that much detail here.  Your alternate suggestion is better.  I
suggest the following:

   For example, the standard ASCII representation of an IP Version 4
   address is "dotted decimal", also known as dotted quad, and for IP
   Version 6, addresses are textually represented as groups of
   hexadecimal digits separated by colons (with variations as detailed
   in RFC 2373).

                                                        -- Steve