Re: draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-00.txt and draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-01.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Francis Dupont wrote:
>    why isn't the ipv4-mapped problem addressed in
>    draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-01.txt?
>    
> => this is different: IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses on the wire have far
> more opponents than IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses in the API.
> For instance I am against the first and strongly in favor of the second,
> i.e., I dislike SIIT and our local credo is "IPv6 is not a new protocol,
> IPv6 is a new version of the Internet Protocol".

Francis, could you clarify how your local credo translates to how you'd 
like to, for example, port applications to IPv6?

We're in the process of updating 
draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-02.txt, and it seems like there 
are about half a dozen (at least) ways to create IPv6 applications.  The 
different scenarios are quite complex.  Most of it seems to come from the 
different ways how the mapped addresses could be used.

Could you try to clarify?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings