Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security-02.txt

[Fred Templin <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>]

Tim Chown wrote:

> Another comment:
>
> The example in 6.1 cites compatible addresses.   While these are in use,
> they are being deprecated in draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-02, so I suggest
> the example is reworked a little and that the reference is to the new
> draft and not RFC2893 (reference [4]).
>  

I agree with Tim about updating the [MECH] reference, but I was also
wondering about when it would be OK for implementations to begin
dropping support for IPv4-compatible addresses? I guess there could
be several alternative approaches, including:

 1) remove the IPv4-compatible address support code completely?
 2) leave the code, but surround it with compile-time directives?
     (default-disabled vs. default-enabled is another decision point)
 3) other?

I seem to recall seeing some earlier discussion on this, but perhaps
there are more current viewpoints based on the extensive  scenarios
and analysis work done by 'v6ops'?

Thanks - Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com