Re: [AVT] RTP: IPv6 examples for RTCP SDES CNAME

Seems reasonable.
Colin

--> "Peter Barany" writes:
>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:csp@isi.edu]
>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
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt