Christian Huitema escribió:
At least the former usage has some certain applications. For example, in
case of NAT64, if a dual-stack host could distinguish synthesized IPv6
addresses from native IPv6 addresses, it will not prefer a synthesized IPv6
address to an IPv4 address for initiating a communication with an IPv4 host.
The well known prefix is easy to recognize, so there is no problem there. For
stateless, the design makes sure that the IPv4 translatable addresses can be
routed natively, which means there is no reason to not prefer them. That leaves
a pretty small domain of applicability for any scheme that would reserve
identifier patterns...
In addition, in the NSP case, the host can configure the RFC3484 policy
table to preffer native connectivity.
Regards, marcelo
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
