[Dime] RFC4006bis: Using IPv4-mapped-IPv6 addresses in Redirect-Address-IPv6Address
Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 20:44 UTC
Return-Path: <ddolson@sandvine.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC43C12961E for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:44:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qwzHH2cL6efC for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1307412961C for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLR-EXCHP-2.sandvine.com (192.168.196.172) by WTL-EXCHP-3.sandvine.com (192.168.196.177) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 15:44:17 -0500
Received: from WTL-EXCHP-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::ac6b:cc1e:f2ff:93aa]) by blr-exchp-2.sandvine.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 15:44:16 -0500
From: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RFC4006bis: Using IPv4-mapped-IPv6 addresses in Redirect-Address-IPv6Address
Thread-Index: AdKUXAYmPpa31PbRRT2PgzfhwBRZTw==
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 20:44:15 +0000
Message-ID: <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9870534445@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.200.63]
x-c2processedorg: b2f06e69-072f-40ee-90c5-80a34e700794
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9870534445wtlexchp1sandvi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/JUGVEEQtMN8aulUNQ-Isu-pwrOk>
Subject: [Dime] RFC4006bis: Using IPv4-mapped-IPv6 addresses in Redirect-Address-IPv6Address
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 20:44:21 -0000
I've been reviewing https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-01.txt One thing I noticed is that nothing is said about whether it is acceptable to use IPv4-mapped-IPv6 addresses in IPv6 AVPs. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.5.2 Briefly, an IPv6 address like ::ffff:c000:201 (also written ::ffff.192.0.2.1) is used to represent an IPv4 address. This simplifies the number of AVPs required, simplifies software, and makes IPv6 a first-class citizen. I'd like to ask this group if we can add language to explicitly permit ipv4-mapped-ipv6 addresses in RFC4006bis. -Dave