Re: IPv6 Address Architecture update question

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 05:39:15PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
> >My take of this is that they should remain in the IPv6 address 
> >architecture. There is current usage and removing them would break other 
> >specifications.
> 
> I would agree with that conclusion for mapped addresses, but I have 
> heard NO ONE explicitly saying anything about the usefulness of 
> compatible addresses.
> 
> Thus my take is that compatibles should be removed, and some kind of 
> warning/reference text added to the mapped addresses. 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition-03 (soon to be RFC) discusses 
> some of this.

Hi Pekka,

I thought compatibles had (or were) being removed.  That's why all reference
to them was removed from the new transition mechanisms RFC update?  See
section 9 of draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-06.txt.   If we're doing a u-turn on
that, we should catch it in this draft too.

The docs at http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/~eva/IPv6-web/ipv6.html and as
draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition-03.txt (not -02!) show good 
practice.   Has the application-transition draft been last called yet?  
Could we get it pushed and cited here in this RFC update?

I didn't realise mapped was disabled on so many systems, very interesting.
I am indifferent on mapped addresses; they clearly have use, and are being 
used, but it's not a wholly 'clean' solution for some of the reasons posted
here and were we to start again...

I think Itojun's mapped-on-the-wire-harmful draft is also good to cite,
but that seems unlikely to ever complete?

-- 
Tim

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------