>> 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.
>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?
as i wrote in the reply to Brian (Zill), i have multiple routes to
pick from. some of them is friendly with SIIT, however, if we take
a route that is friendly SIIT, i think we leave too much complexity
in the code/address arch, and we will see future security issues
(complexity = possibility for security issue).
i'm not sure if removal is necessary/required. there are many RFCs
that conflicts with each other, or RFCs requiring updates to old ones.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
