>I disagree. First off all, "must not" is way too strong of a
>requirement. If someone understands all the potential
>harmfull effects and is prepared to deal with them, then
>the addresses can be allowed.
i'm not optimitic about it.
>Secondly, I don't think that the addressing architecture should
>forbid the use of the address in an extension header. That is
>for the extension header to define.
in which kind of extension header IPv4 mapped address make sense?
certainly not the extension header.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
