compatible address support [Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security-02.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Fred Templin wrote:
> >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'?

IMHO, this is probably an implementation choice, and not something we
can or should specify here.  Personally, I see very little use for
them..

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