In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:21:27 +0900),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
> that briefly? i'm trying to understand your mindset, and it looks
> like as follows (correct me if i'm wrong):
> - IPv4 packet on the wire, and native-ipv4-mapped packet on the wire,
> must go through the same set of accept/deny policy in the kernel.
> (I believe this is not correct understanding of RFC2553 section 3.7.
> see below)
> - this is applications' responsibility to deal with native-ipv4-mapped
> packet. (this is close to impossible, from what RFC2553 provides)
I think:
- IPv4 packet on the wire, and native-ipv4-mapped packet on the wire,
should be handled by the same set of accept/deny policy in
APPLICATIONs.
- this is KERNEL's responsibility to deal with native-ipv4-mapped
packet. KERNEL should drop malicious packet from outside.
You too, Brian (Zill)?
--
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Web Page: http://www.ecei.tohoku.ac.jp/%7Eyoshfuji/
PGP5i FP: F731 6599 5EB2 BBA7 1515 1323 1806 A96F 5700 6B25
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
