IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Thu, 24 March 2022 06:45 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83D93A0A80 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 23:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=delong.com
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 HHp3u2mGbjKA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 23:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D1A3A0A62 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 23:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([192.168.1.243]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 22O6ipEo3519443 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 23:44:51 -0700
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 22O6ipEo3519443
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1648104293; bh=2w+nOAzqCJQfQhuV+cA7YOZUsU0dZaRJebF2O7Nedrk=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=jkv6+x9GI+KMPPxpuET/la3WtPhKrmjWeHy0uMkAlv43incjPA3VK/oZHcisIe4L7 72QFNyrpLBff5XhxqORFxJ9GqwHU4eOunmCOtQctf7IQ5zLnPV2VzdJic76r1KQ7Av qbWZYorQaeDe/UP2Jg9N78cDkszpRXfwv/Dhh8Ks=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <623B83BA.7020100@jmaimon.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 23:44:51 -0700
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, buraglio@es.net, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF2EC505-D4B9-4F28-9529-AADF44C2469E@delong.com>
References: <52661a3d-75dc-111a-3f23-09b10d7cb8d4@gmail.com> <A72CDDDB-CDCE-4EAF-B95E-997C764DB2C4@gmail.com> <9175dc32-45c1-e948-c20a-3bcc958b77b9@gmail.com> <YjmJQMNgnJoSInUw@Space.Net> <fd17a91f-68dc-92b5-0544-51aefa1b7f08@gmail.com> <CAM5+tA-Wq5O4pjQ++VZQi-FTKZGMRAW-LFc6O5dPOyox4QZDEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mK=Xgtt+aYa4ga8YqK2XYhCdQUPrwgVU8xstH+F_RAfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5+tA9zhMpJ1s8keoL8eoEMej5tOM=-imXypHEreUa3wOrt5Q@mail.gmail.com> <2959747f-7b2e-ba95-64ae-95794fa8c4eb@gmail.com> <1854df9952924635afe5ac183421a046@huawei.com> <CAM5+tA95XJEEmz3jBNgNyHVdSDTPqE+A1nXogKEvnQHKTG=Mrg@mail.gmail.com> <8f918356-89ce-e2a1-a807-7d382568db0a@gmail.com> <623B83BA.7020100@jmaimon.com>
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Wed, 23 Mar 2022 23:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/qbwDpTJLZ8KFWkaOJZ-p7y72x7M>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 24 Mar 2022 06:45:18 -0000

IIRC, ::ffff:a.b.c.d/96 is never supposed to be present in a packet on the wire.

I believe it is intended to allow software to be coded for IPv6 and have the operating system
do connections over IPv4 or IPv6 without the software having to have any special IPv4
related code.

Owen


> On Mar 23, 2022, at 13:31 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Eduard, you wrote:
>> 
>>> I am puzzled why ::ffff:0:0/96 has been treated as IPv4? Strange interpretation.
>> 
>> Not at all strange. By definition (see RFC4291, section 2.5.5.2) that is the entire
>> IPv4 address space, respresented as an IPv6 prefix.
>> 
> There is 2 thing at play. IPv6 packets with IPv4 embedded addresses as either or both source and destination.
> 
> And IPv4 packets with IPv4 addresses for both source and destination.
> 
> Perhaps they should be ranked individually.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email