IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com> Thu, 01 May 2014 06:44 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@microsoft.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 BDD8A1A0A17; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 vTFzjQ12N6O9; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0207.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D32F1A0A15; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLUPR03MB424.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.78.152) by BLUPR03MB423.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.78.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.929.12; Thu, 1 May 2014 06:44:29 +0000
Received: from BLUPR03MB424.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.78.152]) by BLUPR03MB424.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.78.152]) with mapi id 15.00.0929.001; Thu, 1 May 2014 06:44:29 +0000
From: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Q about IPv4-mapped IPv6 address & MPLS
Thread-Index: AQHPZQPSCzbpGVI9y0mONiS9cBGpH5srRWcQ
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 06:44:29 +0000
Message-ID: <fd46bfdc1db843d2b34ae7a7e06c0c20@BLUPR03MB424.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CF875D2F.1951A9%rajiva@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF875D2F.1951A9%rajiva@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [24.16.156.113]
x-forefront-prvs: 01986AE76B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(428001)(189002)(199002)(51704005)(77096999)(87936001)(33646001)(2201001)(19580395003)(85852003)(20776003)(76576001)(15202345003)(46102001)(79102001)(83072002)(101416001)(81342001)(77982001)(92566001)(54356999)(86362001)(50986999)(99396002)(83322001)(80022001)(99286001)(81542001)(74502001)(86612001)(4396001)(80976001)(2656002)(66066001)(31966008)(15975445006)(76176999)(76482001)(74662001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR03MB423; H:BLUPR03MB424.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:BCA2C0F5.3EFE1DC9.9D11349.C68AE311.201EE; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/JL7FAutRoetgSqL0JaO9-HD9v4A
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 06:44:42 -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 *

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