Subject: (ngtrans) SIIT and mapped-addresses on the wire

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:22:37 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

Triggered by itojun's post on bugtraq about transitional technique abuses:

http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?content=/templates/archive.pike%3Ffromthread%3D0%26list%3D1%26end%3D2001-06-30%26mid%3D193046%26threads%3D0%26start%3D2001-06-24%26
("issues with RFC2553 IPv6 API" on 24th Jun)

one has to wonder:

 - Are there any implementations of SIIT?  Shouldn't it be on experimental
track?

 - Overloading ipv6 mapped addresses is baaaad.  Would SIIT be usable if
it was redefined to use some other addressing, or should it just be
disbanded?

 - Everything would be so much simpler if mapped addresses must not be
seen on the wire..

The problems of AF_INET6 receiving IPv4 packets is a separate issue,
having been, and being, discussed in other threads..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:29:11 +0900

>it was redefined to use some other addressing, or should it just be

	SIIT reuses IPv4 mapped address to reduce the amount of mods
	needed on (supposedly IPv6-only) clients.

itojun