> I think the point you are making is that according to
> draft-ietf-ngtrans-siit-07.txt, there will be cases where an IPv6 node will
> be sending an IPv6 packet to an IPv4-mapped IPv6 destination address. In
> other words, IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses can appear on the wire in IPv6
> packets.
>
> This means that my draft can not unambiguously use IPv4-mapped addresses as
> a convenient representation for IPv4 addresses. Sigh.
Why not?
I fail to see an actual problem caused by the intersection of SIIT and
the default address selection rules.
The (perhaps unstated) assumtion in SIIT is that SIIT doesn't make sense
on a dual stack node configured with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
Thus the only choice for an IPv6-only node supporting SIIT when phased
with an IPv4 destination or an IPv4-mapped IPv6 destination is to
send IPv6 packets to the IPv4-mapped address.
The thing the default address draft might not cover (I haven't read it
carefully yet) is the need for such a node to use an IPv4-translatable source
address when sending to an IPv4-mapped destination.
If we fix this then are there other problems?
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
