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

[Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>]

>>
>>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

=> 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,
not least due to the fact that it is an implementation issue. If that
entry points to an IPv4 tunnel it should be fine. So it is possible to
implement a tunnel that way inside the host/router and nothing to stop
someone from doing unless I missed an RFC.

> and if 
>they're there, I would want hosts/routers to drop them.

=> Is that behaviour documented somewhere? Also, you¹re mixing them
appearing on the wire with an internal implementation issue.

Hesham

>Not doing this 
>seems to me it would open to all kinds of unwanted consequences when it
>comes to filtering etc.
>
>-- 
>Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops