Subject: (ngtrans) RFC 2765 and SIIT

From: "Michael Cole" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 13:44:47 -0400

I asked Erik Nordmark what the difference between 0::FFFF:0:a.b.c.d 
(0:0:0:0:FFFF:0:a.b.c.d expanded) and 0::FFFF:0:0:0:a.b.c.d 
(0:0:FFFF:0:0:0:a.b.c.d) was. He says that the former is a valid format and the 
latter is undefined. (That is, a typographical error)

The first time I saw that, I started asking if it could be a mistake.

--- Michael Cole

--- [email-masked] 

--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 20:44:38 +0200 (CEST)

> (0:0:FFFF:0:0:0:a.b.c.d) was. He says that the former is a valid format and
> the  latter is undefined. (That is, a typographical error)

And the SIIT spec does not talk about the latter.
It talks about IPv4-mapped (::ffff:a.b.c.d) and IPv4-translatable
(::ffff:0:a.b.c.d) and that's it.

Perhaps you are confused by the prefix syntax of 0::ffff:0:0:0/96?
This is the translatable prefix i.e the prefix in which addresses
of the form ::ffff:0:a.b.c.d fall.

  Erik