Re: 6to4 relays [Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)]

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:15:28 +0300 (EEST)
    From:        Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209102114250.26051-100000@netcore.fi>

  | I wonder if we can encourage Microsoft implementations not to assume bogus 
  | things about 6to4 relays.  Like it having the address 
  | '2002:<RELAY_IPv4>::<RELAY_IPv4>'.

I haven't seen the implementation, so this is a real question ... which
way is it assuming that?

If when it is acting as a 6to4, that's the address it assigns itself,
that is, RELAY_IPv4 is its own IPv4 address, then that sounds OK to me,
it has to have something, as a v6 addr by default, right?

If it is assuming that some other node will have that address, then why?
Why would anyone ever want to directly address a 6to4 relay node?  That
would be much like having nodes attempt to guess the IP(4 or 6) address of
some router along the path to a destination (including the local egress
and remote ingress routers).   It just makes no sense to assume anything
about any of those addresses (I mean, how would you even tell it was
making the assumption).

So, what is the actual encouragement that is needed?

kre