IPv6 Maintenance Working Group S. Kawamura
Internet-Draft NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
Updates: 4291 (if approved) M. Kawashima
Intended status: Standards Track NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
Expires: August 23, 2010 February 19, 2010
A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-06
Abstract
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.
While the IPv6 address architecture RFC 4291 section 2.2 depicts a
flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address, this
flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system
engineers, and users. This document will describe the problems that
a flexible text representation has been causing. This document also
recommends a canonical representation format that best avoids
confusion. It is expected that the canonical format is followed by
humans and systems when representing IPv6 addresses as text, but all
implementations must accept and be able to handle any legitimate
RFC4291 format.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2010.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Text Representation Flexibility of RFC4291 . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Zero Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Uppercase or Lowercase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Problems Encountered with the Flexible Model . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Searching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2. Searching Spreadsheets and Text Files . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. Searching with Whois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.4. Searching for an Address in a Network Diagram . . . . 7
3.2. Parsing and Modifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3. Auditing: Case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.5. Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.6. Unexpected Modifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Operating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. Customer Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.3. Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Other Minor Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.1. Changing Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.2. Preference in Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.3. Legibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. "::" Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Lower Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Text Representation of Special Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Notes on Combining IPv6 Addresses with Port Numbers . . . . . 11
7. Prefix Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. For Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
1. Introduction
A single IPv6 address can be text represented in many ways. Examples
are shown below.
2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1
2001:0db8:0:0:1:0:0:1
2001:db8::1:0:0:1
2001:db8::0:1:0:0:1
2001:0db8::1:0:0:1
2001:db8:0:0:1::1
2001:db8:0000:0:1::1
2001:DB8:0:0:1::1
All the above represent the same IPv6 address. This flexibility has
caused many problems for operators, systems engineers, and customers.
The problems will be noted in Section 3. Also, a canonical
representation format to avoid problems will be introduced in
Section 4.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Text Representation Flexibility of RFC4291
Examples of flexibility in Section 2.2 of [RFC4291] are described
below.
2.1. Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field
'It is not necessary to write the leading zeros in an individual
field.'
In other words, it is also not necessary to omit leading zeros. This
means that, it is possible to select from such as the following
example. The final 16 bit field is different, but all these
addresses mean the same.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:eeee:0001
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:eeee:001
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:eeee:01
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:eeee:1
2.2. Zero Compression
'A special syntax is available to compress the zeros. The use of
"::" indicates one or more groups of 16 bits of zeros.'
It is possible to select whether or not to omit just one 16 bits of
zeros.
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::1
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:0:1
In case where there is more than one zero fields, there is a choice
of how many fields can be shortened. Examples follow.
2001:db8:0:0:0::1
2001:db8:0:0::1
2001:db8:0::1
2001:db8::1
In addition, [RFC4291] in section 2.2 notes,
'The "::" can only appear once in an address.'
This gives a choice on where, in a single address to compress the
zero. Examples are shown below.
2001:db8::aaaa:0:0:1
2001:db8:0:0:aaaa::1
2.3. Uppercase or Lowercase
[RFC4291] does not mention about preference of uppercase or
lowercase. Various flavors are shown below.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:eeee:aaaa
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:eeee:AAAA
2001:db8:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:eeee:AaAa
3. Problems Encountered with the Flexible Model
3.1. Searching
3.1.1. General Summary
A search of an IPv6 address if conducted through a UNIX system is
usually case sensitive and extended options to allow for regular
expression use will come in handy. However, there are many
applications in the Internet today that do not provide this
capability. When searching for an IPv6 address in such systems, the
system engineer will have to try each and every possibility to search
for an address. This has critical impacts especially when trying to
deploy IPv6 over an enterprise network.
3.1.2. Searching Spreadsheets and Text Files
Spreadsheet applications and text editors on GUI systems, rarely have
the ability to search for a text using regular expression. Moreover,
there are many non-engineers (who are not aware of case sensitivity
and regular expression use) that use these application to manage IP
addresses. This has worked quite well with IPv4 since text
representation in IPv4 has very little flexibility. There is no
incentive to encourage these non-engineers to change their tool or
learn regular expression when they decide to go dual-stack. If the
entry in the spreadsheet reads, 2001:db8::1:0:0:1, but the search was
conducted as 2001:db8:0:0:1::1, this will show a result of no match.
One example where this will cause problem is, when the search is
being conducted to assign a new address from a pool, and a check was
being done to see if it was not in use. This may cause problems to
the end-hosts or end-users. This type of address management is very
often seen in enterprise networks and also in ISPs.
3.1.3. Searching with Whois
The "whois" utility is used by a wide range of people today. When a
record is set to a database, one will likely check the output to see
if the entry is correct. If an entity was recorded as 2001:db8::/48,
but the whois output showed 2001:0db8:0000::/48, most non-engineers
would think that their input was wrong, and will likely retry several
times or make a frustrated call to the database hostmaster. If there
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
was a need to register the same address on different systems, and
each system showed a different text representation, this would
confuse people even more. Although this document focuses on
addresses rather than prefixes, this is worth mentioning since
problems encountered are mostly equal.
3.1.4. Searching for an Address in a Network Diagram
Network diagrams and blue-prints often show what IP addresses are
assigned to a system devices. In times of trouble shooting, there
may be a need to search through a diagram to find the point of
failure (for example, if a traceroute stopped at 2001:db8::1, one
would search the diagram for that address). This is a technique
quite often in use in enterprise networks and managed services.
Again, the different flavors of text representation will result in a
time-consuming search, leading to longer MTTR in times of trouble.
3.2. Parsing and Modifying
3.2.1. General Summary
With all the possible text representation ways, each application must
include a module, object, link, etc. to a function that will parse
IPv6 addresses in a manner that no matter how it is represented, they
will mean the same address. Many system engineers who integrate
complex computer systems to corporate customers will have
difficulties finding that their favorite tool will not have this
function, or will encounter difficulties such as having to rewrite
their macro's or scripts for their customers.
3.2.2. Logging
If an application were to output a log summary that represented the
address in full (such as 2001:0db8:0000:0000:1111:2222:3333:4444),
the output would be highly unreadable compared to the IPv4 output.
The address would have to be parsed and reformed to make it useful
for human reading. Sometimes, logging for critical systems is done
by mirroring the same traffic to two different systems. Care must be
taken that no matter what the log output is, the logs should be
parsed so they will mean the same.
3.2.3. Auditing: Case 1
When a router or any other network appliance machine configuration is
audited, there are many methods to compare the configuration
information of a node. Sometimes, auditing will be done by just
comparing the changes made each day. In this case, if configuration
was done such that 2001:db8::1 was changed to 2001:0db8:0000:0000:
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
0000:0000:0000:0001 just because the new engineer on the block felt
it was better, a simple diff will show that a different address 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 doing any
real auditing. Lots of tools are just plain 'diff's that do not take
into account address representation rules.
3.2.4. Auditing: Case 2
Node configurations will be matched against an information system
that manages IP addresses. If output notation is different, there
will need to be a script that is implemented to cover for this. The
result of an SNMP GET operation, converted to text and compared to a
textual address written by a human is highly unlikely to match on
first try.
3.2.5. Verification
Some protocols require certain data fields to be verified. One
example of this is X.509 certificates. If an IPv6 address field in a
certificate was incorrectly verified by converting it to text and
making a simple textual comparison to some other address, the
certificate may be mistakenly shown as being invalid due to a
difference in text representation methods.
3.2.6. Unexpected Modifying
Sometimes, a system will take an address and modify it as a
convenience. For example, a system may take an input of
2001:0db8:0::1 and make the output 2001:db8::1. If the zeros were
input for a reason, the outcome may be somewhat unexpected.
3.3. Operating
3.3.1. General Summary
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
result as 2001:DB8::1:0:0:1. Someone familiar with IPv6 address
representation will know that the right address is set, but not
everyone may understand this.
3.3.2. Customer Calls
When a customer calls to inquire about a suspected outage, IPv6
address representation should be handled with care. Not all
customers are engineers nor have the same skill in IPv6 technology.
The network operations center will have to take extra steps to
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
humanly parse the address to avoid having to explain to the customers
that 2001:db8:0:1::1 is the same as 2001:db8::1:0:0:0:1. This is one
thing that will never happen in IPv4 because IPv4 address cannot be
abbreviated.
3.3.3. Abuse
Network abuse is reported along with the abusing IP address. This
'reporting' could take any shape or form of the flexible model. A
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
placement of the "::" will result in a critical situation. A system
that handles these incidents should be able to handle any type of
input and parse it in a correct manner. Also, incidents are reported
over the phone. It is unnecessary to report if the letter is an
uppercase or lowercase. However, when a letter is spelled uppercase,
people tend to clarify that it is uppercase, which is unnecessary
information.
3.4. Other Minor Problems
3.4.1. Changing Platforms
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
address text representation. Usually, a change in a platform (e.g.
Unix to Windows, Cisco to Juniper) will result in a major change of
code anyway, but flexibility in address representation will increase
the work load.
3.4.2. Preference in Documentation
A document that is edited by more than one author, may become harder
to read.
3.4.3. Legibility
Capital case D and 0 can be quite often misread. Capital B and 8 can
also be misread.
4. A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation
A recommendation for a canonical text representation format of IPv6
addresses is presented in this section. The recommendation in this
document is one that, complies fully with [RFC4291], is implemented
by various operating systems, and is human friendly. The
recommendation in this section SHOULD be followed by systems when
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
generating an address to represent as text, but all implementations
MUST accept and be able to handle any legitimate [RFC4291] format.
It is advised that humans also follow these recommendations when
spelling an address.
4.1. Handling Leading Zeros in a 16 Bit Field
Leading zeros MUST be suppressed. For example 2001:0db8::0001 is not
acceptable and must be represented as 2001:db8::1. A single 16 bit
0000 field MUST be represented as 0.
4.2. "::" Usage
4.2.1. Shorten As Much As Possible
The use of symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability. For
example, 2001:db8::0:1 is not acceptable, because the symbol "::"
could have been used to produce a shorter representation 2001:db8::1.
4.2.2. Handling One 16 Bit 0 Field
The symbol "::" MUST NOT be used to shorten just one 16 bit 0 field.
For example, the representation 2001:db8:0:1:1:1:1:1 is correct, but
2001:db8::1:1:1:1:1 is not correct.
4.2.3. Choice in Placement of "::"
When there is an alternative choice in the placement of a "::", the
longest run of consecutive 16 bit 0 fields MUST be shortened (i.e.
the sequence with three consecutive zero fields is shortened in 2001:
0:0:1:0:0:0:1). When the length of the consecutive 16 bit 0 fields
are equal (i.e. 2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1), the first sequence of zero
bits MUST be shortened. For example 2001:db8::1:0:0:1 is correct
representation.
4.3. Lower Case
The characters "a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f" in an IPv6 address MUST
be represented in lower case.
5. Text Representation of Special Addresses
Addresses such as IPv4-Mapped IPv6 addresses, ISATAP [RFC5214], and
IPv4-translatable addresses [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] have
IPv4 addresses embedded in the low-order 32 bits of the address.
These addresses have special representation that may mix hexadecimal
and dot decimal notations. The decimal notation may be used only for
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
the last 32 bits of the address. For these addresses, mixed notation
is RECOMMENDED if the following condition is met: The address can be
distinguished as having IPv4 addresses embedded in the lower 32 bits
solely from the address field through the use of a well known prefix.
Such prefixes are defined in [RFC4291] and [RFC2765] at the time of
writing. If it is known by some external method that a given prefix
is used to embed IPv4, it MAY be represented as mixed notation.
Tools that provide options to specify prefixes that are (or are not)
to be represented as mixed notation may be useful.
There is a trade-off here where a recommendation to achieve exact
match in a search (no dot decimals whatsoever) and recommendation to
help the readability of an addresses (dot decimal whenever possible)
does not result in the same solution. The above recommendation is
aimed at fixing the representation as much as possible while leaving
the opportunity for future well known prefixes to be represented in a
human friendly manner as tools adjust to newly assigned prefixes.
The text representation 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
When IPv6 addresses and port numbers are represented in text combined
together, there are many different ways to do so. Examples are shown
below.
o [2001:db8::1]:80
o 2001:db8::1:80
o 2001:db8::1.80
o 2001:db8::1 port 80
o 2001:db8::1p80
o 2001:db8::1#80
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
IPv6 addresses. This style is NOT RECOMMENDED for its ambiguity.
The [] style as expressed in [RFC3986] SHOULD be employed, and is the
default unless otherwise specified. Other styles are acceptable when
there is exactly one style for the given context and cross-platform
portability does not become an issue. For URIs, [RFC3986] MUST be
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
followed.
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. Security Considerations
This document notes on some examples where IPv6 addresses are
compared in text format. The example on Section 3.2.5 is one that
may cause a security risk if used for access control. The common
practice of comparing X.509 data is done in binary format.
9. IANA Considerations
None.
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jan Zorz, Randy Bush, Yuichi Minami,
Toshimitsu Matsuura for their generous and helpful comments in kick
starting this document. We also would like to thank Brian Carpenter,
Akira Kato, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Antonio Querubin, Dave Thaler,
Brian Haley, Suresh Krishnan, Jerry Huang, Roman Donchenko, Heikki
Vatiainen ,Dan Wing for their input. Also a very special thanks to
Ron Bonica, Fred Baker, Brian Haberman, Robert Hinden, Jari Arkko,
and Kurt Lindqvist for their support in bringing this document to the
light of IETF working groups.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2765] Nordmark, E., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
(SIIT)", RFC 2765, February 2000.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]
Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",
draft-ietf-behave-address-format-04 (work in progress),
January 2010.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4038] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E.
Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition",
RFC 4038, March 2005.
[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214,
March 2008.
Appendix A. For Developers
We recommend that developers use display routines that conform to
these rules. For example, the usage of getnameinfo() with flags
argument NI_NUMERICHOST in FreeBSD 7.0 will give a conforming output,
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
be called directly. See [RFC4038] for details.
Authors' Addresses
Seiichi Kawamura
NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
14-22, Shibaura 4-chome
Minatoku, Tokyo 108-8558
JAPAN
Phone: +81 3 3798 6085
Email: kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Text Representation February 2010
Masanobu Kawashima
NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
800, Shimomata
Kakegawa-shi, Shizuoka 436-8501
JAPAN
Phone: +81 537 23 9655
Email: kawashimam@necat.nec.co.jp
Kawamura & Kawashima Expires August 23, 2010 [Page 14]
