Agree 100% with Vlad. v4 mapped address exists to facilitate transition. In a transition scenario one inherits whatever is good or bad in v4 security anyway.
IMHO I think we should debate on where to introduce security measures: packet itself (as in this field in the packet should not contain v4 mapped address) or packet processing (do not source route to a given v4 destination unless ...). So I believe there is not good enough reason to forbit the usage of v4 mapped address. Hemanth. Vladislav Yasevich wrote: > > 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. > > > > itojun > > 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. > > 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. > > -vlad -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
