Address Sorting NOT in V8

Sam Wilson Sam.Wilson at
Thu Mar 30 17:30:24 UTC 2000

In article <6PKE4.11$YN6.278 at burlma1-snr2>, Barry Margolin
<barmar at> wrote:

>In article <38E2AF19.440D1B2E at>,
>Kevin Darcy  <kcd at> wrote:
>>Barry Margolin wrote:
>>Barry, is there actually a *standard* which describes/specifies address-prefix
>>notation? I've been looking for something to which I could refer folks,
but all I
>>seem to be able to find is spontaneous uses of the notation in RFC's starting
>>circa 1996...
>I meant standard in the informal sense, meaning conventional.  Since the
>notation doesn't get used in any network protocols (protocols like BGP4 and
>OSPF represent prefixes internally as two fields, the prefix and the
>length), there's not much need for a standard.

I disagree.  There are TWO RFCs describing how IPv6 addresses should be
presented, RFC2372, a Proposed Standard
<>, and the rather quirkier
RFC1924 <> which is
Informational.  Whilst the former isn't only about represtentations it
does explicitly describe the "ipv6-address/prefix-length" format as well
as that for individual addresses.

Sam Wilson
Network Services Division, Computing Services
The University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

More information about the bind-users mailing list