From: Automatic Updater Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:55:49 +0000 (+0000) Subject: sync X-Git-Tag: v9.6.3~510 X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=e16fa96712efe0371685e393c5988e4970ce8bee;p=thirdparty%2Fbind9.git sync --- diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-06.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-06.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 62c5ad002f9..00000000000 --- a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-06.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,785 +0,0 @@ - - - -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] - -