Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote:
> <discuss-3> Please consider covering link types other than Ethernet (e.g.,
> Wifi?) and even point-to-point links. The PTP link brings other aspects of ND
> operations over links that don't have MAC addresses. Were these aspects
> discussed by the WG for covering in this document?
Good question.
Could we also take a moment to understand why this draft is only a
one-way specification (forwarding v4 packets over v6 networks) rather
than specifying a generalization of the routing infrastructure to also
forward v6 packets over v4 networks?
Many of the complications of v4-over-v6 are not necessary for
v6-over-v4, such as for ICMP support. Since there is already a
standardized way to represent any routable IPv4 address in an IPv6
address (RFC 4291 section 2.5.5), an ICMPv6 "destination unreachable"
packet could merely be sent from the IPv6 address corresponding to the
IPv4 address of the router.
If the WG's goal is to improve the ease of spreading IPv6, then it seems
to me that the small changes in this draft that would be needed to
standardize a simpler way for an ISP to carry v6 packets into corners of
the Internet that today only have IPv4 addresses would be valuable.
John Gilmore
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
