> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri May 4 03:15:51 2001
> Received: from roll.mentat.com (roll [192.88.122.129])
> by leo.mentat.com (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA07760
> for <tim@leo>; Fri, 4 May 2001 03:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43])
> by roll.mentat.com (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA20140
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 4 May 2001 03:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.170.5])
> by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA12084;
> Fri, 4 May 2001 03:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from sunroof.eng.sun.com (sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.168.88])
> by engmail3.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id
>DAA10911;
> Fri, 4 May 2001 03:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from sunroof.eng.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.0.Beta8+Sun/8.12.0.Beta8) with ESMTP id
>f44AC0IM008095
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 4 May 2001 03:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.0.Beta8+Sun/8.12.0.Beta8) id f44AC0gL008094
> for ipng-dist; Fri, 4 May 2001 03:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Authentication-Warning: sunroof.eng.sun.com: majordomo set sender to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
> Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com (jurassic [129.146.84.31] (may be forged))
> by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.12.0.Beta8+Sun/8.12.0.Beta8) with ESMTP id
>f44ABnIM008087
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 4 May 2001 03:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from buse (buse.France.Sun.COM [129.157.212.11])
> by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.12.0.Beta8+Sun/8.12.0.Beta8) with SMTP id
>f44ABVHD302120;
> Fri, 4 May 2001 03:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: multicast IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses/sockets
>
> So I'd argue for just sticking IPv4 multicast addresses in ::ffff:0:0/96
> at the API and have the implementations which support mapped addresses
> do the right thing to send/receive IPv4 multicast packets in that case.
>
I would agree. What we want is application transparency so allowing
::ffff:224.x.y.z to represent IPv4 multicast addresses or ::ffff:127.0.0.1
to represent IPv4 loopback addresses seems like the right thing.
tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
