On 21 July 2011 17:00, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote:
> . Packet X is submitted to ordinary IPv6 routing because its payload IS NOT > an IPv4 packet. > . Packet Y has its contents directly submitted to the CE NAT44 because its > payload IS an IPv4 packet. (The 4V6 address 2001:db8:a::1, never treated as a > destination on any IPv6 link, is in fact a "dummy address".) > =============== Please describe what you mean by an IPv6 "dummy address", or where can one find it described? In your model you seem to have an address on the 4V6 CE. This address, whatever you want to call it is either a duplicate address (somehow host H has it too) or an anycast address (that again somehow host H ended up with). On top of that somehow the CE is able to ignore regular IPv6 local/forward processing rules by looking at the payload (whether is IPinIP or not). Apart from this being rather far fetched, how does that line up with native IPv6 forwarding that you claim to be at issue here? Oh, one other thing: Say that IPv6 Host H was actually running an IPinIP tunnel/application and wants to receive such traffic. How does the model you describe work then? Thanks, Woj. PS In terms of exotic set-ups, I'm sure we can find plenty of other ones. This does not change the fact that in the S46 set-up with the characteristics as outlined in my initial reply, without system elements having duplicate IPv6 addresses, the problem you mention does not appear in neither translation nor tunneling modes. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
