On 2007-10-12 16:27, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
On 2007-10-11 23:46, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
Not viewed from the socket programmer's point of view.
Look at how an AF_INET6 socket behaves when given
an address like ::FFFF:192.0.2.3
afaik the behavior is then exactly what you describe.
Whether the stacks are independent code modules or
alternate paths through the same code is irrelevant
to the externally observed behavior.
see draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview-06.txt section 2.2.
Sure. I absolutely don't like to see ::FFFF/96 on the wire.
then we'd have to deprecate SIIT at least. still, you cannot be sure
that ::ffff:0:0/96 are not on the wire.
I agree, it just isn't obvious that such packets will be delivered...
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf