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

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

> >   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..

Agreed there isn't much use for them based on how folks are deploying
or want to deploy IPv6 AFAIK.

Trying to address the 1,2,3 above;
We don't have data that compatible addresses are harmful though.
So I think this means that implementors can remove the support when it
is convenient to them.

  Erik