draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-03.txt		draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-04.txt
	IPv6 Maintenance Working Group S. Kawamura		IPv6 Maintenance Working Group S. Kawamura
	Internet-Draft NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.		Internet-Draft NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
	Intended status: Standards Track M. Kawashima		Intended status: Standards Track M. Kawashima
	Expires: May 29, 2010 NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.		Expires: July 18, 2010 NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
	November 25, 2009		January 14, 2010
	A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation		A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
	draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-03		draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	As IPv6 network grows, there will be more engineers and also non-		As IPv6 network grows, there will be more engineers and also non-
	engineers who will have the need to use an IPv6 address in text.		engineers who will have the need to use an IPv6 address in text.
	While the IPv6 address architecture RFC 4291 section 2.2 depicts a		While the IPv6 address architecture RFC 4291 section 2.2 depicts a
	flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address, this		flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address, this
	flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system		flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system
	engineers, and users. This document will describe the problems that		engineers, and users. This document will describe the problems that
	a flexible text representation has been causing. This document also		a flexible text representation has been causing. This document also
	skipping to change at page 1, line 48		skipping to change at page 1, line 48
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on May 29, 2010.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 18, 2010.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 2, line 43		skipping to change at page 2, line 43
	3.1.4. Searching for an Address in a Network Diagram . . . . 7		3.1.4. Searching for an Address in a Network Diagram . . . . 7
	3.2. Parsing and Modifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.2. Parsing and Modifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2.1. General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.2.1. General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2.2. Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.2.2. Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2.3. Auditing: Case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.2.3. Auditing: Case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.2.5. Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.2.5. Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.2.6. Unexpected Modifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.2.6. Unexpected Modifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.3. Operating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.3. Operating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.3.1. General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.3.1. General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.3.2. Customer Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.3.2. Customer Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.3.3. Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.3.3. Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.4. Other Minor Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.4. Other Minor Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.4.1. Changing Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.4.1. Changing Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.4.2. Preference in Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.4.2. Preference in Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.4.3. Legibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.4.3. Legibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation . . . . . . . . 10		4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation . . . . . . . . 9
	4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field . . . . . . . . . 10		4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2. "::" Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2. "::" Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.3. Lower Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.3. Lower Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5. Text Representation of Special Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5. Text Representation of Special Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers . . . . . 11		6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers . . . . . 11
	7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. Prefix Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
			12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Appendix A. For Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		Appendix A. For Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Appendix B. Prefix Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	A single IPv6 address can be text represented in many ways. Examples		A single IPv6 address can be text represented in many ways. Examples
	are shown below.		are shown below.
	2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1		2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1
	2001:0db8:0:0:1:0:0:1		2001:0db8:0:0:1:0:0:1
	skipping to change at page 8, line 17		skipping to change at page 8, line 17
	it was better, a simple diff will tell you that a different address		it was better, a simple diff will tell you that a different address
	was configured. If this was done on a wide scale network, people		was configured. If this was done on a wide scale network, people
	will be focusing on 'why the extra zeros were put in' instead of		will be focusing on 'why the extra zeros were put in' instead of
	doing any real auditing. Lots of tools are just plain 'diff's that		doing any real auditing. Lots of tools are just plain 'diff's that
	do not take into account address representation rules.		do not take into account address representation rules.
	3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2		3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2
	Node configurations will be matched against an information system		Node configurations will be matched against an information system
	that manages IP addresses. If output notation is different, there		that manages IP addresses. If output notation is different, there
	will need to be a script that is implemented to cover for this. An		will need to be a script that is implemented to cover for this. The
	SNMP GET of an interface address and text representation in a humanly		result of an SNMP GET operation, converted to text and compared to a
	written text file is highly unlikely to match on first try.		textual address written by a human is highly unlikely to match on
			first try.
	3.2.5. Verification		3.2.5. Verification
	Some protocols require certain data fields to be verified. One		Some protocols require certain data fields to be verified. One
	example of this is X.509 certificates. If an IPv6 address was		example of this is X.509 certificates. If an IPv6 address field in a
	embedded in one of the fields in a certificate, and the verification		certificate was incorrectly verified by converting it to text and
	was done by just a simple textual comparison, the certificate may be		making a simple textual comparison to some other address, the
	mistakenly shown as being invalid due to a difference in text		certificate may be mistakenly shown as being invalid due to a
	representation methods.		difference in text representation methods.
	3.2.6. Unexpected Modifying		3.2.6. Unexpected Modifying
	Sometimes, a system will take an address and modify it as a		Sometimes, a system will take an address and modify it as a
	convenience. For example, a system may take an input of		convenience. For example, a system may take an input of
	2001:0db8:0::1 and make the output 2001:db8::1 (which is seen in some		2001:0db8:0::1 and make the output 2001:db8::1. If the zeros were
	RIR databases). If the zeros were input for a reason, the outcome		input for a reason, the outcome may be somewhat unexpected.
	may be somewhat unexpected.
	3.3. Operating		3.3. Operating
	3.3.1. General Summary		3.3.1. General Summary
	When an operator sets an IPv6 address of a system as 2001:db8:0:0:1:		When an operator sets an IPv6 address of a system as 2001:db8:0:0:1:
	0:0:1, the system may take the address and show the configuration		0:0:1, the system may take the address and show the configuration
	result as 2001:DB8::1:0:0:1. A distinguished engineer will know that		result as 2001:DB8::1:0:0:1. Someone familiar with IPv6 address
	the right address is set, but an operator, or a customer that is		representation will know that the right address is set, but not
	communicating with the operator to solve a problem, is usually not as		everyone may understand this.
	distinguished as we would like.
	3.3.2. Customer Calls		3.3.2. Customer Calls
	When a customer calls to inquire about a suspected outage, IPv6		When a customer calls to inquire about a suspected outage, IPv6
	address representation should be handled with care. Not all		address representation should be handled with care. Not all
	customers are engineers nor have the same skill in IPv6 technology.		customers are engineers nor have the same skill in IPv6 technology.
	The NOC will have to take extra steps to humanly parse the address to		The network operations center will have to take extra steps to
	avoid having to explain to the customers that 2001:db8:0:1::1 is the		humanly parse the address to avoid having to explain to the customers
	same as 2001:db8::1:0:0:0:1. This is one thing that will never		that 2001:db8:0:1::1 is the same as 2001:db8::1:0:0:0:1. This is one
	happen in IPv4 because IPv4 address cannot be abbreviated.		thing that will never happen in IPv4 because IPv4 address cannot be
			abbreviated.
	3.3.3. Abuse		3.3.3. Abuse
	Network abuse is reported along with the abusing IP address. This		Network abuse is reported along with the abusing IP address. This
	'reporting' could take any shape or form of the flexible model. A		'reporting' could take any shape or form of the flexible model. A
	team that handles network abuse must be able to tell the difference		team that handles network abuse must be able to tell the difference
	between a 2001:db8::1:0:1 and 2001:db8:1::0:1. Mistakes in the		between a 2001:db8::1:0:1 and 2001:db8:1::0:1. Mistakes in the
	placement of the "::" will result in a critical situation. A system		placement of the "::" will result in a critical situation. A system
	that handles these incidents should be able to handle any type of		that handles these incidents should be able to handle any type of
	input and parse it in a correct manner. Also, incidents are reported		input and parse it in a correct manner. Also, incidents are reported
	skipping to change at page 9, line 37		skipping to change at page 9, line 33
	information.		information.
	3.4. Other Minor Problems		3.4. Other Minor Problems
	3.4.1. Changing Platforms		3.4.1. Changing Platforms
	When an engineer decides to change the platform of a running service,		When an engineer decides to change the platform of a running service,
	the same code may not work as expected due to the difference in IPv6		the same code may not work as expected due to the difference in IPv6
	address text representation. Usually, a change in a platform (e.g.		address text representation. Usually, a change in a platform (e.g.
	Unix to Windows, Cisco to Juniper) will result in a major change of		Unix to Windows, Cisco to Juniper) will result in a major change of
	code, but flexibility in address representation will increase the		code anyway, but flexibility in address representation will increase
	work load.		the work load.
	3.4.2. Preference in Documentation		3.4.2. Preference in Documentation
	A document that is edited by more than one author, may become harder		A document that is edited by more than one author, may become harder
	to read.		to read.
	3.4.3. Legibility		3.4.3. Legibility
	Capital case D and 0 can be quite often misread. Capital B and 8 can		Capital case D and 0 can be quite often misread. Capital B and 8 can
	also be misread.		also be misread.
	skipping to change at page 10, line 20		skipping to change at page 10, line 14
	by various operating systems, and is human friendly. The		by various operating systems, and is human friendly. The
	recommendation in this document SHOULD be followed by systems when		recommendation in this document SHOULD be followed by systems when
	generating an address to represent as text, but all implementations		generating an address to represent as text, but all implementations
	MUST accept any legitimate [RFC4291] format. It is advised that		MUST accept any legitimate [RFC4291] format. It is advised that
	humans also follow these recommendations when spelling an address.		humans also follow these recommendations when spelling an address.
	4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field		4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field
	Leading zeros should be chopped for human legibility and easier		Leading zeros should be chopped for human legibility and easier
	searching. Also, a single 16 bit 0000 field should be represented as		searching. Also, a single 16 bit 0000 field should be represented as
	just 0. Place holder zeros are often cause of misreading.		just 0.
	4.2. "::" Usage		4.2. "::" Usage
	4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible		4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible
	The use of "::" should be used to its maximum capability (i.e. 2001:		The use of "::" should be used to its maximum capability (i.e. 2001:
	db8::0:1 is not considered as clean representation).		db8::0:1 is not considered as clean representation).
	4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field		4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field
	skipping to change at page 11, line 11		skipping to change at page 11, line 6
	Recent implementations tend to represent IPv6 address as lower case.		Recent implementations tend to represent IPv6 address as lower case.
	It is better to use lower case to avoid problems such as described in		It is better to use lower case to avoid problems such as described in
	section 3.3.3 and 3.4.3.		section 3.3.3 and 3.4.3.
	5. Text Representation of Special Addresses		5. Text Representation of Special Addresses
	Addresses such as IPv4-Mapped IPv6 addresses, ISATAP [RFC5214], and		Addresses such as IPv4-Mapped IPv6 addresses, ISATAP [RFC5214], and
	IPv4-translatable addresses [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] have		IPv4-translatable addresses [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] have
	IPv4 addresses embedded in the low-order 32 bits of the address.		IPv4 addresses embedded in the low-order 32 bits of the address.
	These addresses have special representation that may mix hexadecimal		These addresses have special representation that may mix hexadecimal
	and decimal notations. The decimal notation may be used only for the		and dot decimal notations. The decimal notation may be used only for
	last 32 bits of the address. For these addresses, mixed notation is		the last 32 bits of the address. For these addresses, mixed notation
	recommended if either of the below conditions are met.		is recommended if the following condition is met: The address can be
			distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits
	(1) The address can be distinguished as having IPv4 addresses		solely from the address field through the use of a well known prefix.
	embedded in the lower 32 bits solely from the address field. (e.g.		If it is known by some external method that a given prefix includes
	Well Known Prefixes)		an IPv4 address, it MAY be represented as mixed notation. Tools that
			provide options to specify prefixes that is (or is not) to be
	(2) An external mechanism such as prefix learning or pre-		represented as mixed notation may be useful.
	configuration helps in recognizing the address as having IPv4
	addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits.
	However, there may be situations where full hexadecimal		The text representation method noted in Section 4 should be applied
	representation is chosen to meet certain needs. Addressing those		for the leading hexadecimal part (i.e. ::ffff:192.0.2.1 instead of
	needs is out of the scope of this document. The text representation		0:0:0:0:0:ffff:192.0.2.1).
	method noted in Section 4 should be applied for the leading
	hexadecimal part (i.e. ::ffff:192.0.2.1 instead of 0:0:0:0:0:ffff:
	192.0.2.1).
	6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers		6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers
	When IPv6 addresses and port numbers are represented in text combined		When IPv6 addresses and port numbers are represented in text combined
	together, there seems to be many different ways to do so. Examples		together, there are many different ways to do so. Examples are shown
	are shown below.		below.
	o [2001:db8::1]:80		o [2001:db8::1]:80
	o 2001:db8::1:80		o 2001:db8::1:80
	o 2001:db8::1.80		o 2001:db8::1.80
	o 2001:db8::1 port 80		o 2001:db8::1 port 80
	o 2001:db8::1p80		o 2001:db8::1p80
	o 2001:db8::1#80		o 2001:db8::1#80
	The situation is not much different in IPv4, but the most ambiguous		The situation is not much different in IPv4, but the most ambiguous
	case with IPv6 is the second bullet. This is due to the "::"usage in		case with IPv6 is the second bullet. This is due to the "::"usage in
	IPv6 addresses. This style is not recommended for its ambiguity.		IPv6 addresses. This style is not recommended for its ambiguity.
	The [] style as expressed in [RFC3986] is recommended. Other styles		The [] style as expressed in [RFC3986] should be employed, and is the
	are acceptable when cross-platform portability does not become an		default unless otherwise specified. Other styles are acceptable when
	issue.		there is exactly one style for the given context and cross-platform
			portability does not become an issue.
	7. Conclusion		7. Prefix Representation
			Problems with prefixes are just the same as problems encountered with
			addresses. Text representation method of IPv6 prefixes should be no
			different from that of IPv6 addresses.
			8. Conclusion
	The recommended format of text representing an IPv6 address is		The recommended format of text representing an IPv6 address is
	summarized as follows.		summarized as follows.
	(1) omit leading zeros in a 16 bit field		(1) omit leading zeros in a 16 bit field
	(2) when using "::", shorten consecutive zero fields to their		(2) when using "::", shorten consecutive zero fields to their
	maximum extent (leave no zero fields behind).		maximum extent (leave no zero fields behind).
	(3) "::" used where shortens address the most		(3) "::" used where shortens address the most
	(4) "::" used in the former part in case of a tie breaker		(4) "::" used in the former part in case of a tie breaker
	(5) do not shorten one 16 bit 0 field, but always shorten when		(5) do not shorten one 16 bit 0 field, but always shorten when
	there are two or more consecutive 16 bit 0 fields		there are two or more consecutive 16 bit 0 fields
	(6) use lower case		(6) use lower case
	Hints for developers are written in the Appendix section.		Hints for developers are written in the Appendix section.
	8. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	None.		None.
	9. IANA Considerations		10. IANA Considerations
	None.		None.
	10. Acknowledgements		11. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Jan Zorz, Randy Bush, Yuichi Minami,		The authors would like to thank Jan Zorz, Randy Bush, Yuichi Minami,
	Toshimitsu Matsuura for their generous and helpful comments in kick		Toshimitsu Matsuura for their generous and helpful comments in kick
	starting this document. We also would like to thank Brian Carpenter,		starting this document. We also would like to thank Brian Carpenter,
	Akira Kato, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Antonio Querubin, Dave Thaler,		Akira Kato, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Antonio Querubin, Dave Thaler,
	Brian Haley, Suresh Krishnan, Jerry Huang, Roman Donchenko, Heikki		Brian Haley, Suresh Krishnan, Jerry Huang, Roman Donchenko, Heikki
	Vatiainen ,Dan Wing for their input. Also a very special thanks to		Vatiainen ,Dan Wing for their input. Also a very special thanks to
	Ron Bonica, Fred Baker, Brian Haberman, Robert Hinden, Jari Arkko,		Ron Bonica, Fred Baker, Brian Haberman, Robert Hinden, Jari Arkko,
	and Kurt Lindqvist for their support in bringing this document to the		and Kurt Lindqvist for their support in bringing this document to the
	light of IETF working groups.		light of IETF working groups.
	11. References		12. References
	11.1. Normative References		12.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing		[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
	Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.		Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
	11.2. Informative References		12.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]		[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]
	Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.		Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
	Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",		Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",
	draft-ietf-behave-address-format-01 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-behave-address-format-03 (work in progress),
	October 2009.		December 2009.
	[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform		[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
	Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,		Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
	RFC 3986, January 2005.		RFC 3986, January 2005.
	[RFC4038] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E.		[RFC4038] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E.
	Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition",		Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition",
	RFC 4038, March 2005.		RFC 4038, March 2005.
	[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site		[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
	skipping to change at page 13, line 44		skipping to change at page 14, line 5
	Appendix A. For Developers		Appendix A. For Developers
	We recommend that developers use display routines that conform to		We recommend that developers use display routines that conform to
	these rules. For example, the usage of getnameinfo() with flags		these rules. For example, the usage of getnameinfo() with flags
	argument NI_NUMERICHOST in FreeBSD 7.0 will give a conforming output,		argument NI_NUMERICHOST in FreeBSD 7.0 will give a conforming output,
	except for the special addresses notes in Section 5. The function		except for the special addresses notes in Section 5. The function
	inet_ntop() of FreeBSD7.0 is a good C code reference, but should not		inet_ntop() of FreeBSD7.0 is a good C code reference, but should not
	be called directly. See [RFC4038] for details.		be called directly. See [RFC4038] for details.
	Appendix B. Prefix Issues
	Problems with prefixes are just the same as problems encountered with
	addresses. Text representation method of IPv6 prefixes should be no
	different from that of IPv6 addresses.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Seiichi Kawamura		Seiichi Kawamura
	NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.		NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
	14-22, Shibaura 4-chome		14-22, Shibaura 4-chome
	Minatoku, Tokyo 108-8558		Minatoku, Tokyo 108-8558
	JAPAN		JAPAN
	Phone: +81 3 3798 6085		Phone: +81 3 3798 6085
	Email: kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp		Email: kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp
End of changes. 29 change blocks.
	76 lines changed or deleted		72 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.37b. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/