> On 2007-10-11 23:46, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> >> Not viewed from the socket programmer's point of view.
> >> Look at how an AF_INET6 socket behaves when given
> >> an address like ::FFFF:192.0.2.3
> >> afaik the behavior is then exactly what you describe.
> >> Whether the stacks are independent code modules or
> >> alternate paths through the same code is irrelevant
> >> to the externally observed behavior.
> >
> > see draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview-06.txt section 2.2.
>
> Sure. I absolutely don't like to see ::FFFF/96 on the wire.
then we'd have to deprecate SIIT at least. still, you cannot be sure
that ::ffff:0:0/96 are not on the wire.
itojun
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
