[Dime] RFC4006bis and IPv6 redirect address

Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com> Wed, 06 July 2016 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ddolson@sandvine.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D742312D775 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 07:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.325
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I7SdZHSYdGtg for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 07:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (mail1.sandvine.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2601B12D580 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 07:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WTL-EXCHP-2.sandvine.com ([fe80::68ac:f071:19ff:3455]) by WTL-EXCHP-3.sandvine.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:18:52 -0400
From: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RFC4006bis and IPv6 redirect address
Thread-Index: AdHXkVHJsgQ0l6avTpqr0n/qLLXE1w==
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 14:18:51 +0000
Message-ID: <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830FE6825@wtl-exchp-2.sandvine.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-c2processedorg: b2f06e69-072f-40ee-90c5-80a34e700794
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830FE6825wtlexchp2sandvi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/y7mCo4Cu-i4NNAWB-aVveipXid4>
Subject: [Dime] RFC4006bis and IPv6 redirect address
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 14:19:26 -0000

In RFC4006, we find the following in section 8.38, Redirect-Address-Type AVP:

   IPv6 Address                    1
      The address type is in the form of IPv6 address, as defined in
      [IPv6Addr].  The address is a text representation of the address
      in either the preferred or alternate text form [IPv6Addr].
      Conformant implementations MUST support the preferred form and
      SHOULD support the alternate text form for IPv6 addresses.

[IPv6Addr] refers to obsolete RFC3513. We will change this to RFC4291, but ...
The above wording refers to two formats, "preferred" and "alternate", whereas both RFC3513 and RFC4291 refer to *three* formats:

1.       "The preferred form is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x,..."

2.       "...a special syntax is available to compress the zeros..."

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,..."

See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.2

Is it intended that all 3 forms be supported? Otherwise it seems that only the long preferred form and the mixed alternative forms are permitted, not the compressed form.

My sense is that it was always intended that all of the forms described in section 2.2 of RFC 4291 should be supported.