IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Thu, 01 May 2014 22:23 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 721041A6FD1; Thu, 1 May 2014 15:23:25 -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 RqWOY5IsAyC6; Thu, 1 May 2014 15:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDAC1A09FD; Thu, 1 May 2014 15:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1486; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398983002; x=1400192602; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=96vsd51YQJo+TPtRwY3YG0Z6Lb+rTV+ilM9D0NirNpM=; b=Ee4z89Vx/aT0/I3insgTNdEk+3UyKPW2S70UfYAij50jTQl5s0K9egCm I7sFlzuWRpMqP6EH8xzV83nJDASwtHJgcvpRjzo/UZLhrOhafSWOwlAhx DY9LGjBihDHS4UbYGgUoGHBW2f75Gm/LBBbel8NQ8ZQ+K+LRu7l8yvnah Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAAjJYlOtJA2G/2dsb2JhbABagwbGAIEUFnSCJQEBAQMBeQULAgEIGC4yJQIEDgWIOQjJdReOHzMHgySBFQSJTI9jkm6DMw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,967,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="318773423"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 May 2014 22:23:21 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s41MNLZ2028760 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 1 May 2014 22:23:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.41]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 1 May 2014 17:23:20 -0500
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Q about IPv4-mapped IPv6 address & MPLS
Thread-Index: AQHPZQkfIYq9UHb5jEKNapytnrV9qJsrwdmAgACL/+k=
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 22:23:21 +0000
Message-ID: <BF663432-1AA5-4346-BED8-412C12190B03@cisco.com>
References: <CF875D2F.1951A9%rajiva@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1405010836220.29282@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CF882A16.4EA36%hesham@elevatemobile.com>, <20140501090217.GH43641@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20140501090217.GH43641@Space.Net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/OfZ4EjmJEg36lMTgSJQwC29iwlM
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 22:23:25 -0000

I wish there was a document stating this. It would help to refine the protocol behavior. 

Cheers,
Rajiv

> On May 1, 2014, at 5:02 AM, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email