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

[Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>]

>Hi,
>
>On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 04:46:33PM +1000, Hesham Soliman wrote:
>> >I realise this draft seems to have died, but I would never expect to
>>see
>> >packets with these addresses on the wire
>> 
>> => I recall an information RFC but don¹t remember the number. I agree
>>they
>> will most likely not appear on the wire.
>> 
>> > or in the routing table
>> 
>> => That¹s a different story. I don¹t think there is anything banning
>>this,
>
>If the packets are not going to appear on the wire, argueing about the
>content of the routing table is a bit... theoretical.

=> Of course it is. In theory we have no business mandating what hosts
should do internally, we can discuss best practices ..etc. The question
was whether it can happen and it can.

Hesham

>
>I'd argue for internal representations of stuff to not use that format
>either, as it will just confuse things.  The dual-stack API is bad enough
>for operating system implementors (ran into a bunch of issues with Linux
>recently) to avoid further use of v4-mapped stuff, anywhere.
>
>Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
>-- 
>have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
>SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
>Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
>Grundner-Culemann
>D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>Tel: [phone]           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279