IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 01 May 2014 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 452411A0A1D; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 Xlf-HPyfvtsC; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0948D1A0A17; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 41647A6; Thu, 1 May 2014 08:40:01 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1398926401; bh=IUHzY9P5Tzupc+oTZ9Cw00jAZ0R12KITCQd0JZw7mT8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=v9iSrtsKIY6SlqfOHArroPqa2T7ik1NVdcSEWIWkldg0RNfVZmbMtfF+BrgcpmuZq 3VRaVh/8zy+n1Z2s+Ol4Lgn/L/sKA+JWtQVmdhC7S4UYkIh8kOMz91uRIwm2x5ywAo k5asWe7ioeDjuKaX1yw1Y7fZCMl438Vn0IVEWQd4=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D8FAA5; Thu, 1 May 2014 08:40:01 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 08:40:01 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF875D2F.1951A9%rajiva@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1405010836220.29282@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CF875D2F.1951A9%rajiva@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/LannvsuaRlC7P2NSusb7ov92MjI
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@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 06:40:07 -0000

On Thu, 1 May 2014, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:

>
> 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.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-02

I realise this draft seems to have died, but I would never expect to see 
packets with these addresses on the wire or in the routing table and if 
they're there, I would want hosts/routers to drop them. Not doing this 
seems to me it would open to all kinds of unwanted consequences when it 
comes to filtering etc.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email