[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6-01.txt

I understand your comment. However, the issues you are raising (as well as others) related to 6to4 are already in the 6to4 security RFC (RFC3964), which is already referenced in the 6to4 paragraph. Therefore, I would suggest not to add any additional text in order to not repeat what is already throughly discussed in RFC3964. 

Marc.

Le 07-08-24 à 19:41, Niall O'Reilly a écrit :
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:40:26 +0200, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote: 
I'm coming a bit late to this (sorry)


	Apologies from me too.  At least I'm in good company. 8-)
It would be helpful if prefixes such as 2002:a00::/24 were specifically mentioned as needing special attention. This might be done by explicit 
	mention of each such prefix.  Alternatively, language could be used
which would make clear that the 6to4 image of any IPv4 block for which 
	RFC3330 specifies that "Addresses within this block should not appear
	on the public Internet" should be similarly avoided.

	I believe that this would be useful both to those beginning to deploy
IPv6 in their networks (my case) and those running a 6to4 relay service. 


	Best regards,

	Niall O'Reilly
	University College Dublin IT Services

	PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net)
	Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9





-----
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006, http://www.ipv6book.ca