Le 2012-03-19 à 16:12, Maoke a écrit : > > > 2012/3/20 Rémi Després <[email protected]> > > Le 2012-03-19 à 15:30, Maoke a écrit : > >> >> >> 2012/3/19 Rémi Després <[email protected]> >> >> Le 2012-03-19 à 11:38, Maoke a écrit : >> ... >> >>>>> >>>>> let me draw an example for that: >>>>> >>>>> A --- CE ----(IPv6 domain; router R1 here)---- BR ----(IPv4 Internet; >>>>> router R2 here)--- B >> ... >> >>> 4rd-u isn't concerned with what happens between A and CE. >>> There, internal hosts have RFC1918 addresses and external hosts public IPv4 >>> addresses. >>> >>> no problem here for 4rd-u, but RFC6145/6146 work also in the case the >>> translator is not located next to the end hosts. then i understand 4rd-u is >>> less flexible. >> >> I don't see the configuration you have in mind. >> >> >> people often insert a router between the home CE and their computers ;-) >> sometimes, e.g., because the CE has limited number of ports for connection >> or less funtioning. > > > I still don't see the problem with a NAT44 in the CE. > > > the topic is about 0.0.0.0 as the source address for the ICMPv6-translated > ICMPv4 message's IP header. if there is a router between the CE and the host, > the packet with 0.0.0.0 will be discarded rather than being forwarded, > according to the common definition of the "unspecified address".
As I already said, 0.0.0.0 never appears on any wire: neither in IPv6, of course, nor in IPv4 where the only in-site IPv4 addresses are RFC1918. Anything missed? RD
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
