[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: (ngtrans) Re: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt
- To: "Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino" <itojun@iijlab.net>,"Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
- Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Re: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt
- From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:17:43 -0400
- Cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:18:05 -0700
- Envelope-to: v6ops-data@psg.com
- Thread-index: AcJeXvm7VhSsO/KsQsqyiznl65Cd3AAMFrxA
- Thread-topic: (ngtrans) Re: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt
I believe if a packet comes in with v4mapped then a flag must be set that SIIT is in process. This was my recommendation on APIFOLKS a year ago. If an app gets back a v4mapped and asked for it then that would be known too.
what we should do is document the cases that are not clear above. But we cannot break the API.
I also believe of any NAT proposal I like and support SIIT since inception.
For what it is worth.
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino [mailto:itojun@iijlab.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:27 AM
> To: Erik Nordmark
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
> Subject: (ngtrans) Re: comments on
> draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt
>
>
> (since this is transition tool discussion replies to
> ngtrans please)
>
> >The assumptions behind SIIT is that the node is dual stack
> (the protocols
> >as well as the applications) but the node doesn't have a
> permanent IPv4
> >address and the local network infrastructure does not support IPv4.
> >With those assumptions there aren't any strange requirements
> on the devices
> >(ignoring the AH suggestion in the RFC:-); the ftp
> implementation on a
> >dual stack node already needs to support old stuff when
> communicating with
> >IPv4 addresses.
>
> if the above assumption is true, what do you intend to
> do about the
> dual use of IPv4 mapped address? telnet client on dual
> stack machine
> would make a send(2) request to ::ffff:a.b.c.d, which
> will be captured
> by an AF_INET6 socket, and goes out of the node as IPv4 packet.
> there's no documented way in which ::ffff:a.b.c.d would
> go out as IPv6
> packet. either RFC2553 API does not work, or SIIT dose
> not work.
>
> itojun
>