IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Sip] draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04

"Dale Worley" <dworley@avaya.com> Fri, 29 January 2010 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dworley@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32453A6A5B for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:41:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r0ovlQvdGQmP for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:41:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A0D3A6A45 for <sip@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:41:46 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,369,1262581200"; d="scan'208";a="1839696"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2010 11:41:52 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO zcars04f.nortel.com) ([47.129.242.57]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2010 11:41:51 -0500
Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id o0TGfUs09471; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:41:30 GMT
Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id o0TGfSM20638; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:41:28 GMT
Received: from [47.16.90.165] ([47.16.90.165]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:41:27 -0500
From: "Dale Worley" <dworley@avaya.com>
To: sip@ietf.org, vkg@alcatel-lucent.com
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Nortel Networks
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:41:27 -0500
Message-Id: <1264783287.4057.9.camel@khone.us.nortel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-5.fc8)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2010 16:41:28.0166 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7558060:01CAA101]
Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:41:47 -0000

Looking at draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04, one thing that is not
mentioned is that some C libraries do not always interpret IPv4
"dotted-decimal" addresses in decimal.  In particular, if a component
starts with "0", it will be interpreted in octal:

        $ ping 047.017.025.061
        PING 047.017.025.061 (39.15.21.49) 56(84) bytes of data.

There are also some usages of "dotted-octal" in early RFCs.

I think one can safely argue that we've always intended for IPv4
addresses to be decimal, but I don't think we've ever stated that, and
the word "decimal" doesn't appear in this draft.

It's possible that there are security aspects of this, too, since an
IPv4 address might be interpreted differently than one would expect it
to be.

Dale

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email