Re: One socket per AF (Was: 6to4 using ::FFFF:0000:0000/96...)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-01-29 22:02, Rémi Després wrote:
...
> In Itojun's document I know,
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-00,
> the proposal, in 2003, was to avoid mapped addressses "on the wire"(not
> at socket interfaces).
> As far as I know, this document became obsolete without Itojun himself
> insisting on the subject.

I don't think he changed his mind, though. And this thread started
with operational difficulties caused by such addresses in the wild.

> While it identifies some threats in some configurations, it doesn't
> conflict, in my undersatnding, with mapped addresses on the wire in some
> other useful ones.
> One of these other configurations happens to be very pertinent (and IMHO
> completely Kiss :-) ) for IPv6-only client hosts to be able to reach
> IPv4-only servers.

There's no fundamental need for a magic prefix. Iljitsch and I will have
a combined draft out soon that will discuss this. Being able to use a
regular unicast or anycast prefix to reach the translator is more KISS
than a magic prefix, IMHO.

    Brian