>Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
>>>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.
>There is no point forbidding it from the Destination Options as
>one example. Some new option at some point in time might want
>to use a mapped address. There should be a specific prohibition
>on it.
what for? i don't see any valid use of it.
>Additionally (and what I was trying to say before), the addressing
>architecture does not and should not talk about extension header and
>what's permitted in them.
i'd like to leave it to authors/ipv6wg chairs.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
