Re: [Mip6] about DSMIPv6

Hi,

I've implemented v4traversal-00 draft.

I agree Francis, the IPv4 mapped address has a special meaning by RFC
2553 API.  It is not preferable to use the mapped address in IPv6
headers (See the following the drafts)
	draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful
	draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful

In our code based on KAME, the IPv6 implementation discard a IPv6
header which has the v4 mapped address for sanity at ip6_input() and
ip6_rthadr2().  We also need to add the mapped address in an address
list (the list of all addresses which the node has) to receive the
header.  This is somehow uncomfortable because the mapped address is
actually not routable.

Can the DT summarize your discussions how you reach to use IPv4 mapped
address?

regards, 
Koshiro

At Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:42:09 +0100,
Francis Dupont wrote:
> 
> In case there will be not enough time for global questions:
>  - the I-D is draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-01.txt, isn't it?
>  - there are some IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses in (encapsulated) IPv6
>    headers, this is against IPv6 rules and can become an issue
>    with all the sanity "mapped address -> drop packet" checks
>    in IPv6 current codes...
>  - the IPsec stuff is severely underspecified, I have no idea reading
>    the I-D how the RFC 3776 IPsec SAs are established.
>  - (AGAIN) what is the position of the I-D versus the well known
>    "road warrior" IPsec VPN with NAT traversal (where the keepalive issue
>    is solved BTW) ?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Francis.Dupont@point6.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mip6 mailing list
> Mip6@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6