Re: [netmod] question regarding IPv6 address format / canonical
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Fri, 07 December 2018 08:46 UTC
Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458E312875B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 00:46:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vOobAKJob5yc for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 00:46:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ECB5124BF6 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 00:46:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:1f99:257b:62cc:c0d5]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF16A62679 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:46:31 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1544172391; bh=G6ZOMnvJgi3DGmcLhxh8QqsimvCLOPGXzaOOFptCJEI=; h=From:To:Date; b=VMzXwNtGQzLuMtwj0Saydex/qXHckOIkaWID/+Gs23sfngN20/Jwe4QxRh1Azqh8Q H5pa7806JeUlZixNqM4fzjU4hZTfK7ZonBGcTpgBNDCHERoGAbJ1jveXT3rVS2VTvC 8kf+PgD9S4wAtm9vexBblUvfABIyluxm5KDJWYdw=
Message-ID: <5ea8671bd7642bb39732dd60d3077c5642f435a5.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: netmod@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 09:46:31 +0100
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1812070913070.8891@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1812070913070.8891@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/yxUcKNx4iWbBAaJoj4pTucPHb2g>
Subject: Re: [netmod] question regarding IPv6 address format / canonical
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 08:46:36 -0000
Hi Mikael, On Fri, 2018-12-07 at 09:20 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > Hi, > > we've had an interesting interop problem, and we don't know if this is a > client, server, or just interop problem. However, I thought I'd bring it > to the attention here. > > The server produced an output that was in the format of: > > 2a00:db8:1:2:3::5:0 Correct - this is the canonical value. > > When the client then asked for information about this object it used: > > 2a00:db8:1:2:3:0:5:0 > > The netconf server then returned no answer, because it didn't consider > these to be the same (string match). This is a bug in server implementation. > > I have included what I think is relevant text below, it seems the client > reformatted the address into canonical format. However, the description > below seems to indicate that all those IPv6 types are ok. If the server > must use canonical format, is there a MUST somewhere that says so? > > What does it mean that something is a "canonical format"? It is the value that the server (conceptually) uses internally. See sec. 9.1 in RFC 7950. Lada > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6021 > > typedef ipv6-address { > type string { > .... > } > description > "The ipv6-address type represents an IPv6 address in full, > mixed, shortened, and shortened-mixed notation. The IPv6 > address may include a zone index, separated by a % sign. > The zone index is used to disambiguate identical address > values. For link-local addresses, the zone index will > typically be the interface index number or the name of an > interface. If the zone index is not present, the default > zone of the device will be used. > > The canonical format of IPv6 addresses uses the compressed > format described in RFC 4291, Section 2.2, item 2 with the > following additional rules: the :: substitution must be > applied to the longest sequence of all-zero 16-bit chunks > in an IPv6 address. If there is a tie, the first sequence > of all-zero 16-bit chunks is replaced by ::. Single > all-zero 16-bit chunks are not compressed. The canonical > format uses lowercase characters and leading zeros are > not allowed. The canonical format for the zone index is > the numerical format as described in RFC 4007, Section > 11.2."; > reference > "RFC 4291: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture > RFC 4007: IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture > RFC 5952: A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation"; > } > > -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
- [netmod] question regarding IPv6 address format /… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [netmod] question regarding IPv6 address form… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] question regarding IPv6 address form… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [netmod] question regarding IPv6 address form… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] question regarding IPv6 address form… Ladislav Lhotka