IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Thu, 01 May 2014 06:08 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 CE4DF1A09F8; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 ClyiU_4L0904; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300011A0A03; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=779; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398924532; x=1400134132; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Vte9Knz0JjhgdbAJ1kp3eKKp3ToonmUBVOihCQgxQ+g=; b=IsqidTfcc30ArMFreNaKt0c6brNj2SKNlCN8ZCo1pAluHEJaWd+Ci9Oe XWlAzAJ92+OiEYY0iziK1OkPdt2jkt/LH503Sr7tai186awJa1AOCPn9i 9ujEe2LHkSUyJrB21kstU1jSwuunyg8Syqu0L7Wg/CzzIL3EkwcN8lYNk o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAB3kYVOtJA2L/2dsb2JhbABZgwZPV8RYgRgWdIIsOj8SAT5CJwQBDYhGDcoGF45RhEAEmSqBPJEwgzOCKw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,963,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="40196646"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 May 2014 06:08:52 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4168qRh016918 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 1 May 2014 06:08:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.41]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 1 May 2014 01:08:52 -0500
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Q about IPv4-mapped IPv6 address & MPLS
Thread-Index: AQHPZQPSCzbpGVI9y0mONiS9cBGpHw==
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 06:08:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CF875D2F.1951A9%rajiva@cisco.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: <63CAFEE989E18C4398F9ABD33C077125@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/FQxf_e-Rt3VqFBAkL1f9NAHOL-M
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [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 06:08:58 -0000

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 *

The answer to Q2 will help us assess the efficacy of RFC4379.

Thanks. 
-- 
Cheers,
Rajiv 

* //
An LSR MUST treat the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, defined in
section 2.5.5.2 of [RFC4291], the same as that of a global IPv6 address
and not mix it with the 'corresponding' IPv4 address.
//

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email