Re: comments on draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00.txt

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> 	(since this is transition tool discussion replies to ngtrans please)

I thought the topic of the discussion was draft-itojun-v6ops
which the author seems to think belongs in v6ops :-)


> 	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.

An implementation needs to be configured to either be IPv6-only or
dual stack.
In the dual stack case the mapped addresses at the API correspond
to IPv4 packets on the wire.
In the IPv6-only case the mapped addresses at the API correspond
to IPv6 packets on the wire next to the node, and on the other side of
the translator they correspond to IPv4 packets.

What part of section 3.7 in RFC 2553 conflicts with this?
That section doesn't say that IPv4 packets are sent, it says that the
address is used to for IPv6 applications to interoperate with IPv4
applications. 

What part of the SIIT spec conflicts with RFC 2553?

Please be specific.

  Erik