On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Noel Chiappa<[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> > > > While a non-lisp node receiving a LISP udp/0 packet dropping it seems > > fine to me, a translator dropping a udp/0|null-sum packet instead of > > translating it properly or telling the source-system: "oops, something > > bad happened" is unacceptable (in my mind). > > Ow; now you're making my head hurt.
sorry about that. > I don't think LISP was ever intended to work in the circumstance where an > IPv[46] xTR was talking directly to an IPv[64] (i.e. the opposite of the > other one) xTR, via a IPv[4-6] translator box - just like we don't expect > IPv4 routers to talk to IPv6 routers through an IPv[4-6] translator box. Nope, perhaps not. The original version of this discussion started on ipv6@, and was about what to do if/when a 4to6 (say a nat64 device) translator gets a packet that would match the criteria in question. > So I'm not sure we need to worry about that case either? Or do we need that > case to work? Are there really going to be operational cases _during the term > of the LISP experimental phase_ with IPv4-only xTRs needing to talk to > IPv6-only xTRs? > > (That is of course separate from the case where a IPv6-only xTR wants to talk > to another IPv6-only xTR, and there is no direct v6-native path between them - > it was at that point that my head started to hurt....) sorry :( -Chris -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
