I agree with Itojun I think? I believe the way it should be is that once an address is deprecated no new existing connections should be started (via the SYN) I think we want to keep the wording as SHOULD NOT or SHOULD if we change. In case there is the non normal case that it must be permitted. So I think the basic wording is correct?
/jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 7:08 AM > To: Robert Elz > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: need clarification of "deprecated" address > > > >No, I know you didn't. > > > | i suggested we should refuse new incoming > connections (TCP SYN). > > >Yes, that is what I am arguing against. > > >The line of reasoning seems to be > > > if we accept a connection to a deprecated address, we may > > have to open a connection from a deprecated address later. > > > > we're not allowed to open a connection from a deprecated address > > > > hence we should not accept connections to deprecated addresses > > FTP story was just an example. independent from the > FTP story, i am > - pointing out that the current text does not give any guidance > to incoming TCP SYN case, and > - we should drop incoming TCP SYN to deprecated addresses. > > itojun > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
