Hi Erik,
>> please refer to draft-itojun-ipv6-transition-abuse-01.txt, specifically
>> section 3. my suggestion is to forbid IPv4 mapped address in the IPv6
>> headers, and remove ambiguity from the dual use.
>
>Itojun,
>
>The implication of your recommendation is that we remove SIIT (at least
>as currently specified) from the RFC directories, since the SIIT RFC
>assumes that IPv4-mapped addresses can be sent in IPv6 headers and SIIT
>can't work without this.
>
>Is this really what you are proposing?
I hope not or I am against the proposal.
But I think we have to address Jack's question too. Right now its
unclear whether SIIT is "legal" per the wording in the arch spec.
regards,
/jim
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
