IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 11 October 2007 19:43 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 1Ig3wc-0001Ay-Pk; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:43:42 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ig3wb-00019D-Lg for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:43:41 -0400
Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.184]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ig3wb-000726-9q for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:43:41 -0400
Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so540644rvb for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:40 -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=N08F8S1ta9xUpahSd07Ep86Y5b5u5LD4HRW82lPiZ3c=; b=uBA4KT7w1Gcqm73DaYESe69TsjJAW/Ddg8hE+NFfHLONkPl40gYv/X7+1Y7RdWxhqd1iiIC61VhDz2lODs0CidrbxJAkV5JmLP0u0e1OtZvmJvfadFOrh+P21tW2nlA7fu5C59o/2MHYDjmgm0+7KTXB06I/LVCV1K/WvEoL7lU=
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=KY27m/2y2N2qf87lwcyEjQEdcb8uoZfIomyyPJu9QwTfA6sy4TgeSobYU8QlrpcVLye1mfzUgNwBxkznh2LBg+FeJFIyfDAfjPaFQxzSRYmv8ITp2TZeOTkFLOA6setqt2ZXyxBzY5mz+NRU16yNLG0uic34+5/p/scD18SlTTg=
Received: by 10.141.15.19 with SMTP id s19mr1140529rvi.1192131819888; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.1.1.7? ( [222.153.1.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b34sm4408869rvf.2007.10.11.12.43.33 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <470E7CD5.3000209@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:43:17 +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: <470D39E5.5060807@gmail.com> <20071011104653.52D96233D1@coconut.itojun.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071011104653.52D96233D1@coconut.itojun.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2
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 2007-10-11 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.

     Brian

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email