Re: Modifications to the inet6num in the RIPE Database
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 18:21:30 MET
Guy, Engin,
thanks a lot for the explanation!
Guy said:
>Finally, you can only have one of these constructs per address. This is
>common sense really since, if you have 3ffe::aaaa::bbbb, you cannot tell
>how many zeroes are replaced with the first pair of colons and how many
>by the second. There is no convention (AFAIK) for which block would be
>written out in full. Personally, since I am lazy, I choose to write out
>the fewer number of zeroes (remembering that I only need one zero per
>block of 4 hex digits).
>
>So, some examples of IPv6 addresses are...
>
>3ffe:1100:0:c00::/52
>= Note the :0: because there is a :: later in the address
Engin added:
>The algorithm we use translates "5:0:0:78:0:0:0:0"
>into "5:0:0:78::" but not "5::78:0:0:0:0". Of course,
>both are legal, but we choose to double-colonize the
>last group of zeros, and all prefixes are normalized
>according to this and then put into the registry.
which already gives us two compatible but different ways to deal with
that, and
>But I don't know what 6bone registry does.
interesting, indeed.
Taking this one step further, and looking back at what we did with IPv4,
where it would be feasible to say 131.130/16, implying 131.130.0.0/16,
I wonder if it wouldn't again be worthwhile to restrict the use of these
shorthand notations in the Address Registry?
Is there a danger for braking something by _not_ allowing the "::"
construct in the registry at all, or - in particular - not _in the
middle_ of a prefix?
Wilfried.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@localhost
Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144
A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|