I think this document is useful and should be published. I have one comment though: the document implies that ARP and ND are always necessary, and that there are always link-layer addresses. That's not true though. For example, a pure point-to-point link like PPP or sonet doesn't need ARP or ND. v4-over-v6 will work just fine on such links I think.
Also, I would suggest adding text to the security consideration section that notes that routers using v4-over-v6 routing and don't have IPv4 addresses difficult or impossible to attack from the IPv4 Internet or using IPv4 packets, improving the security posture. Cheers, Lorenzo On Fri, 12 Sept 2025, 11:51 Wassim Haddad, <wassim.haddad= [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Intarea WG, > > This email triggers a WGLC for the “*IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-v4-via-v6/>*” draft. > This document went through multiple revisions, and the chairs and authors > believe it is now ready for WGLC. > > Please (re)-review the draft and send your comments and feedback to > Intarea ML. > > Please note this is a 2-week WGLC ending on 09/26/2025 at 23:59:59 UTC. > > Thanks much and have a great WE! > > > Regards, > > > Juan Carlos & Wassim > > Internet Area WG Chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
