IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 14 October 2007 20:40 UTC

Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhAGQ-0002JG-P0; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:40:42 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhAGP-0002In-39 for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:40:41 -0400
Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.191]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhAGE-0004OG-TV for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:40:37 -0400
Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so1143275rvb for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dRgJFu3FjxAPyoa46t/AxXkYuH+9C8G2fDDNxxWnWsw=; b=kpFW0rQ9BHv+pnOsC6fk3cFmPCwEFbhIBTItZvGJNPXO1Tktyg07Jeu3V3lpMgqFl38yYL9G9o3F0gE4umANCUXNH0R2mIFQXVkNyfGDQH27KyrNW+GeVpTbj8kYDVbounDIlTbmsfqovc/l8zimMSBAGiiVkb2/TdYnIZiqyqc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ov0v2x8qQh6ZxuYWwbEQULmLQmW0AZfrxp644/79KAkwUzQmBlW31s6iYdzrLzq6ZSC9sbCnWENUMWTw54KQCJv0pSzQO8j9RoJrOPN7O3IcE6X+pLJ4YPSRb8SD2jrNr3+3wSYokKE7/gHkl3PnWqS2mJvbxG2Y8vuFz9t1Fac=
Received: by 10.114.14.1 with SMTP id 1mr6166767wan.1192394394793; Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?130.216.38.124? ( [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l22sm6533548waf.2007.10.14.13.39.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <47127E97.7020905@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:39:51 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@itojun.org>
References: <470E7CD5.3000209@gmail.com> <20071012032758.4E4F7233C5@coconut.itojun.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071012032758.4E4F7233C5@coconut.itojun.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On 2007-10-12 16:27, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
>> On 2007-10-11 23:46, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
>>>> Not viewed from the socket programmer's point of view.
>>>> Look at how an AF_INET6 socket behaves when given
>>>> an address like ::FFFF:192.0.2.3
>>>> afaik the behavior is then exactly what you describe.
>>>> Whether the stacks are independent code modules or
>>>> alternate paths through the same code is irrelevant
>>>> to the externally observed behavior.
>>> 	see draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview-06.txt section 2.2.
>> Sure. I absolutely don't like to see ::FFFF/96 on the wire.
> 
> 	then we'd have to deprecate SIIT at least.  still, you cannot be sure
> 	that ::ffff:0:0/96 are not on the wire.

I agree, it just isn't obvious that such packets will be delivered...

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email