> I just took another look at RFC 2765. I believe that for SIIT to work,
> when an IPv6-only node sends to an IPv4-mapped address (so it is sending
> an IPv6 packet with an IPv4-mapped source address, as opposed to using the
> IPv4-mapped address in the API and sending an IPv4 packet), then it must
> use an IPv4-translatable source address. Anything else will just not work
> when the packet gets to the SIIT box.
>  
> So to my mind, this feels more like a section 3 requirement. It's not a
> matter of the IPv6-only node *preferring* to use an IPv4-translatable
> source address. Instead, if there is no IPv4-translatable source address
> available, then the IPv6-only node should *fail* to send to the
> IPv4-mapped destination address.
> 
        => I see, so section 3 is ok then. But just for my understanding
        are you saying that in this case you would basically bypass
        the src address selection rules ?
>  
> But I don't understand Erik's comment that this only applies to nodes that
> implement SIIT. Why does it not apply to all IPv6-only nodes sitting
> behind a SIIT box?
>  
        => I thought that if an IPv6-only node gets an IPv4-mapped 
        address for the dst node then it must use an IPv4-translatable 
        IPv6 src address. 
        If the network does not support SIIT then it must not return 
        an IPv4-mapped address to the IPv6 node (in the DNS reply 
        ....etc). This seems to be inline with what you say above.
        But I don't know if this requirement on IPv4-mapped addresses
        is mentioned anywhere, for example is there anything 
        in NAT-PT that disallows the use of a mapped address 
        for the NAT-PT box ? I think that should be disallowed 
        to avoid confusion in the end hosts.

        I hope this helps.

        Thanks,
        Hesham

>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: Hesham Soliman (EPA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
>       Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 7:35 PM
>       To: Richard Draves
>       Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>       Subject: RE: Request to Advance "Default Address Selection for IPv6"
>       
>       
> 
> 
>               Oops, I missed your comment when doing 06. 
>       I'm not sure I understand it correctly. 
>       Are you suggesting another paragraph in section 3? 
> 
>               => I guess you could add something in section 3, 
>       but it should also be obvious in one of the rules. 
>       So to explain my comment better, the rule would 
>       specify that if the dst address is an IPv4-mapped 
>       IPv6 address, and the node is an IPv6-only node 
>       then the src address selected should be an IPv4-translated 
>       IPv6 address. 
> 
>               As Erik mentioned in the mail I included below, we would
> have 
>       to add a comment specifynig that this is for nodes 
>       that implement SIIT to avoid confusion. 
>       I'm sorry if I didn't include other comments but I couldn't find 
>       any other responses. If someone else commented please 
>       restate your comment. 
> 
>               Does that make sense ? 
> 
>               Thanks, 
>       Hesham. 
> 
>               -----Original Message----- 
>       From: Hesham Soliman (EPA) [
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] 
>       Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 6:16 PM 
>       To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>       Cc: Richard Draves 
>       Subject: RE: Request to Advance "Default Address Selection for IPv6"
> 
> 
> 
>               Hi, 
>       I'm resending this mail, I think it's still applicable to 
>       the latest version. This was sent after the Seattle 
>       meeting. 
>       Hesham 
>       -----Original Message----- 
>       From:   Erik Nordmark [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
>       Sent:   Tuesday, 5 June 2001 12:23 
>       To:     Hesham Soliman  (ERA) 
>       Cc:     [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>       Subject:        RE: W.G. Last Call on "Default Address Selection for
> 
>       IPv6" 
>       > Rich, 
>       > 
>       > Based on our private discussion in Seattle,  think it would 
>       > be useful to add a sending rule for mapped addresses 
>       > as follows: 
>       > 
>       > - If the destination address is an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, and 
>       > - If the host is an IPv6-only host 
>       > the source address MUST be an IPv6-translated address. 
>       I think this makes sense as long as we preface it very clearly with 
>               Nodes that implement SIIT (does not apply to other nodes)
> ... 
>       Without that preface adding these rules will do nothing but adding 
>       confusion. 
>         Erik 
>       -----Original Message----- 
>       From:   Hesham Soliman  (ERA) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
>       Sent:   Tuesday, 5 June 2001 8:40 
>       To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>       Subject:        RE: W.G. Last Call on "Default Address Selection for
> 
>       IPv6" 
>       Rich, 
>       Based on our private discussion in Seattle,  think it would 
>       be useful to add a sending rule for mapped addresses 
>       as follows: 
>       - If the destination address is an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, and 
>       - If the host is an IPv6-only host 
>       the source address MUST be an IPv6-translated address. 
>       Comments ? 
>       Hesham 
> 
> 
>               -----Original Message----- 
>       From:   Bob Hinden [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
>       Sent:   Tuesday, 2 October 2001 9:46 
>       To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>       Cc:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>       Subject:        Request to Advance "Default Address Selection for
> IPv6" 
>       Erik, Thomas, 
>       The chairs of the IP Next Generation working group, on behalf of the
> 
>       working group, request that the following document be published as a
> 
>       Proposed Standard: 
>               Title           : Default Address Selection for IPv6 
>               Author(s)       : R. Draves 
>               Filename        :
> draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr-select-06.txt 
>               Pages           : 22 
>               Date            : 28-Sep-01 
>       A working group last call for this document was completed on June 7,
> 
>       2001.  The "-06" draft was produced in response to comments made
> during 
>       the 
>       w.g. last call and subsequent discussion.  The document was
> discussed at 
> 
>               the London IETF and the w.g. agreed advancing it to Proposed
> Standard 
>       once 
>       the new draft was published. 
>       Bob Hinden / Steve Deering 
>       IPng Working Group Co-Chairs 
>       --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>       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] 
>       --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to