Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Re: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:01:15 -0700

> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 	so could we just agree on simple set of behavior (like "no IPv4
> mapped
> > 	address on wire") and move on?
> >
> 
> Once you clarify what you mean by "no IPv4 mapped address on the
wire",
> we can move on.

Simple: IPv6 stacks are not supposed to send packets to a destination
prefix "::FFFF:0:0/96". If a packet is sent to any such destination,
routers should drop it. If an IPv6 packet is received from such a source
address, it should be ignored.

Another way to say it is that the prefix "::FFFF:0:0/96" is only valid
in the scope of a host, which is consistent with the API usage.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Vladislav Yasevich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:28:50 -0400

Charistian

Thank you.  I agree with your description.

-vlad

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vladislav Yasevich		Tru64 UNIX - IPv6 Project Lead
Hewlett Packard 		Tel: (603) 884-1079
Nashua, NH 03062		ZKO3-3/T07

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:01:03 +0200

From the viewpoint of the BGP applications that use IPv4 mapped
addresses (draft-ietf-ngtrans-bgp-tunnel and
draft-ietf-ppvpn-bgp-ipv6-vpn), we are comfortable with the intent of
agreement on this issue. I have the following comments on Christian's

> address, it should be ignored.

this seems like a reasonable formulation.

> in the scope of a host, which is consistent with the API usage.

I'm not sure that this formulation would be compatible with the use of
IPv4 mapped addresses in the BGP scenarios. Although we could see BGP
speakers as 'hosts' from the BGP application point of view, BGP signals
IPv4 mapped addresses between two BGP speakers who know how to
interprete them. Note that these mapped addresses are encoded in a
specific BGP field, and NOT in source/destination IP address fields of
packets' IP headers.

Jeremy De Clercq.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:01:03 +0200

Jeremy De Clercq.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:55:51 +0900

>specific BGP field, and NOT in source/destination IP address fields of

	if i understnad it right, any form can work, right?  /96 prefix does
	not really matter - we just need to pick one from somewhere.

itojun