IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Q about IPv4-mapped IPv6 address & MPLS

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Thu, 01 May 2014 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD651A6FA7; Thu, 1 May 2014 13:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2TvX5G1glsY5; Thu, 1 May 2014 13:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269AB1A093E; Thu, 1 May 2014 13:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1739; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398977633; x=1400187233; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=alqSDzlX9MhUwXav2nw6kw4kGN8px33LmluVDrbdgdw=; b=S0BdYAEpDuMZV455Q3iMnhPJK5vNljlgKXuhRFrxIKFJOIIRvulNpJow 3gQ0M/1Edaq1e2E4syXgE22vL4OTuLBa8mfU9ocUgD4qpmpuB7i+bYyjl DVwEAwsNlB6QoFbLl4Pbru8mczVGLXITeBBIy4K5JXelRVVnecp33H9Va o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAEizYlOrRDoG/2dsb2JhbABagwZPV8RagRQWdIIlAQEBAwE6PwwEAgEIEQMBAh8QMh0IAgQBDQWIOQcBDcluF45SBwaEMwEDhFmUVoE8kTKDM4Ir
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,966,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="109108251"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 May 2014 20:53:52 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s41Krptj019847 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 1 May 2014 20:53:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.41]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 1 May 2014 15:53:50 -0500
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Q about IPv4-mapped IPv6 address & MPLS
Thread-Index: AQHPZQPSCzbpGVI9y0mONiS9cBGpH5srRWcQgAEANQA=
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 20:53:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CF882BEC.195BC5%rajiva@cisco.com>
References: <CF875D2F.1951A9%rajiva@cisco.com> <fd46bfdc1db843d2b34ae7a7e06c0c20@BLUPR03MB424.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <fd46bfdc1db843d2b34ae7a7e06c0c20@BLUPR03MB424.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [10.82.218.19]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B3272716FAD4DF4194E8B1CB6EBF7498@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1JJaLYzP1Tp-TTpJysBd0iFMDuY
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Q about IPv4-mapped IPv6 address & MPLS
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 20:53:56 -0000

Hi Christian,

Thanks for the pointer. WKPs surely qualify to be in in the RIB/FIB and
label allocations. 

However, v4-mapped v6 addresses are not used by RFC 6052. :o
 

-- 
Cheers,
Rajiv Asati
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco





-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 2:44 AM
To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>,
"v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Q about IPv4-mapped IPv6 address & MPLS

>> We need your guidance on handling v4-mapped v6 addresses (section
>>2.5.5.2
>> of [RFC4291]). 
>>
>> 1. Should/Would they appear in IPv6 routing table?
>> 2. Should an IPv6 packet with ::FFFF:127.0.0.0  be forwarded or dropped
>>or
>>      treated as a loopback packet, if ever received?
>>
>> The answer to Q#1 will help MPLS WG to decide the proper handling of
>> v4-mapped v6 addresses in LDPv6 draft section 7 1st para.
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-12#section-7 *
>
>You may want to check RFC 6052, IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators.
>RFC 6052 updates RFC4291, and lets translators construct domain specific
>addresses that can actually be used in the routing tables. It also
>includes an answer to your loopback packet question:
>
>   The Well-Known Prefix MUST NOT be used to represent non-global IPv4
>   addresses, such as those defined in [RFC1918] or listed in Section 3
>   of [RFC5735].  Address translators MUST NOT translate packets in
>   which an address is composed of the Well-Known Prefix and a non-
>   global IPv4 address; they MUST drop these packets.
>
>-- Christian Huitema
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email