On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Jim Bound wrote:
> but v4 mapped does not affect the ISV porting effort at all and in fact
> makes their job much easier if the platform they are porting to supports
> that paradigm.
you are absolutely right. my concern was about api issues. a modification
in the behaviour of af_inet6 passive socket, so that they are not allowed
to accept connections from af_inet sockets, would have imho nightmarish
effects.
there has been a misunderstanding. i wanted to say that forbidding the use
of ipv4 mapped address "on the wire" would surely eliminate all security
problems. as someone has pointed out, this is not acceptable - and i am
also of this opinion. but itojun is certainly right when he says that rfcs
and drafts should be precise, clear and not contradictory when dealing
with important matters that can become a security issue.
--
Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem...
Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ferrara Linux User Group http://www.ferrara.linux.it
Project6 - IPv6 for Linux http://project6.ferrara.linux.it
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
