Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, I'm
>> getting there. More in line:
>>
>> >> 1) Registrar accepts any Lx1 as local. There is no precedent in v6
>> >> APIs to open such a socket, but this actually supported on many >>
>> platforms. It's used for nasty stuff like transparent application >>
>> layer proxies, forced HTTP proxying, and the like.
>>
>> > I think there's a more subtle way to look at it. When the registrar
>> > receives a protocol 41 packet from a new ACP address, it
>> conceptually > synthesises a new virtual interface and assigns Lx1 as
>> its link local > address. On that interface, things would look
>> normal. Thus RFC2473:
>>
>> I can buy this. It argues that the Proxy should send a gratuitous
>> packet to the Registrar to prime that virtual interface. An ICMP echo
>> request perhaps.
> Or a GRASP M_NOOP, designed for such purposes!
I think that's also reasonable.
>> How can we document this well?
> I think it has to be spelled out almost at the pseudocode level. We had
> to spell out the encap/decap behaviour for 6to4 in some detail, and
> that was just about the only bit of 6to4 that never created trouble
> ;-). There are various encap/decap specs of that kind, and the NAT64
> stuff also goes into horrible detail...
okay. Are you suggesting the 6to4 document should be looked at for style?
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
