Le 21 juil. 2011 à 11:30, Wojciech Dec a écrit : > On 21 July 2011 11:06, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Le 20 juil. 2011 à 18:25, Wojciech Dec a écrit : >> >>>>> ... >>>>>> If packets are sent to that address, they >>>>>> get passed to NAT44. Hosts behind the CPE or apps on the CPE will not >>>>>> use/bind to that address. >> >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK, this prohibits using the full CE-assigned IPv6 on the CE LAN side. >>>>> Such a constraint isn't needed with "4V6 encapsulation". >>>> >>>> No. >> >> A justification of this "no" is missing, because: > > It's not missing. Please do read once more the rest of the mail, as > well as those of others. > >> - The CE 4V6 address is synonymous with a valid IPv6 address in the range >> defined by the CE IPv6 prefix. >> - With 4V6T, a translated IPv4 packet entering a 4V6 site cannot be >> distinguished from an IPv6 packet destined to this valid IPv6 address. >> >> An example: >> >> Host >> H >> +-+ router >> | |< 2001:db8:a:: >> | |--------------. .-. >> | | | | |< 2001:db8:a::/64 4V6T CE >> +-+ LAN |--| |-----------------. +-+ >> | | | | | |< 2001:db8:a:/56 >> --------------' '-' LAN |---| |------------ >> | +-+ <= IPv6 packet >> ----------------' sent to host H >> >> - The IPv6 address of host H has a permitted value (at least per sec 3.2.1 >> of RFC 3041 on privacy addresses). > > No. > The above indicates some confusion between a prefix and an address > Aside from the fact that Host H above has an address that is clearly > not derived via SLAAC (not to mention very bogus in the context of > rfc3041),
> on the above link you either have TWO/THREE(?) devices with > the same IP address (2001:db8:a::) Not two or three! Just one. Having a delegated prefix at an interface (e.g. < 2001:db8:a::/64) doesn't mean that this prefix is the interface address, does it? Confusing prefixes, like 2001:db8:a::/64), and addresses, like 2001:db8:a::, seems to be what YOU did, not me ;-). As you know, we both agreed, in an of-list discussion, that the IID of 4V6 addresses would better be a 1 than a 0. This would avoid, as you pointed out, a conflict the IID of the Subnet-Router anycast address of RFC 4291. This being done, replace the host address by 2001:db8:a::1, and the example holds better. If the IID of 4V6 addresses is not permitted on a link, the 4V6 CE's could be difficult to reach from the Internet. If it is a permitted one, a host behind the CE may have this IID. Regards, RD > all on different links, or the 4V6 > routers without any address. In either case the set-up is not correct > (or at least your model set-up is the problem). > > Thanks, > Woj. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
