IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Address Architecture update question

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Tue, 01 February 2005 15:49 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18501 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:49:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cw0Ze-0005e4-Rz for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 11:08:19 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cw0ET-00021B-EL; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:46:25 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cw099-0000Q0-R3 for ipv6@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:40:55 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17797 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:40:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cw0RJ-0005Oo-MY for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:59:43 -0500
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j11FdGQ17993; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:39:16 +0200
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:39:15 +0200
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20050201032232.02f44e90@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502011737050.17853@netcore.fi>
References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050131043340.02fbf0c0@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com> <6.1.2.0.2.20050201032232.02f44e90@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: IPv6 WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 Address Architecture update question
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906

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.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email