P.S. You may consider as well to take care of the idnits: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-intarea-v4-via-v6-04.txt
L. > On 21 Nov 2025, at 14:43, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Juliusz, > > Thanks for the update. > >> On 20 Nov 2025, at 13:56, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I did read this document as part of my shepherding. >>> >>> Very well written and to the point. Thank you. >> >> Thanks, Luigi. >> >>> I have a couple of nits that I put hereafter, marked with [LI]. >> >> I've just published -04, which includes your changes except the following >> one: >> >>>> Resolution may be recursive: the next-hop may itself be a prefix that >>>> requires further resolution to map to the outgoing interface and L2 >>>> address. V4-via-v6 routing does not prevent recursive resolution. >>> >>> [LI] Does this include any form of recursion or just v4 -> v6 -> v6 ….. etc >>> ? >>> Can you clarify? > > Actually my point was about clearly stating that once you are in the ipv6 > domain you stay in ipv6. > But at the end of the day since this document is about v4-via-v6 it should be > ok the way it is stated now. > >> >> Since we only define v4-via-v6, once you're in v6 land you stay there. If >> we were to ever define v6-via-v4 (which I'm not advocating), then you >> could in principle alternate between the two domains, which would likely >> lead to an increase in nervous breakdowns among network administrators. >> >> I'm not too keen on expanding on this statement, since I have no >> operational experience with recursive v4-via-v6, and I'm afraid I'll say >> something wrong. So please let me take the low-risk path of not saying >> anything more about recursion, at least until we get some operational >> experience with recursion together with v4-via-v6. >> >> Thanks again, >> >> -- Juliusz > > > The following comment in section 4 has not been addressed. > >> >> Routers implementing the mechanism described in this document do not >> need to have any IPv4 addresses assigned to any of their interfaces, >> and RFC 1812 does not specify what happens if no router-id has been > > [LI] Any reason why “RFC 1812” is not in brackets? > > Any reason not evident to me? > > Thanks > > L.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
